Record Debt Sale

[ripmeister]

Wow! Tax cut. UUUUge omnibus bill. Possible trade war with China who we expect to buy our debt. This kind of stuff is not a zero sum game as the POTUS would seem to think.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/investing/us-debt-sale-record-treasury/index.html

[Grokmaster]

The tax cuts will increase revenues, as they ALWAYS DO...it doesn't happen overnight.

Desperate attempt to find a cloud for the economy's Silver Lining, duly-noted.

[Crepitus]

The tax cuts will increase revenues, as they ALWAYS DO...it doesn't happen overnight.

Desperate attempt to find a cloud for the economy's Silver Lining, duly-noted.

Historically tax cuts have not increased revenue in most cases. Come visit Kansas for a recent example.

[ripmeister]

The tax cuts will increase revenues, as they ALWAYS DO...it doesn't happen overnight.

Desperate attempt to find a cloud for the economy's Silver Lining, duly-noted.

I know that's the thinking but such remains to be seen.

[Crepitus]

Wow! Tax cut. UUUUge omnibus bill. Possible trade war with China who we expect to buy our debt. This kind of stuff is not a zero sum game as the POTUS would seem to think.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/investing/us-debt-sale-record-treasury/index.html

1/3 of a trillion dollars in a week. Mind boggling.

[ripmeister]

The tax cuts will increase revenues, as they ALWAYS DO...it doesn't happen overnight.

Desperate attempt to find a cloud for the economy's Silver Lining, duly-noted.
I must say you always find a way to diss on what may be a legitimate concern on the part of other posters. Are you saying you have no concerns about this? Your flippant dismissal of this is no less desperate if that's the game you want to play.

[Grokmaster]

I must say you always find a way to diss on what may be a legitimate concern on the part of other posters. Are you saying you have no concerns about this? Your flippant dismissal of this is no less desperate if that's the game you want to play.

I recognize the obvious motivation behind the "concern".

[Grokmaster]

The Trump Effect..AGAIN.


We have to show strength, to get results...IOW= EXACTLY what the successful international entrepreneur POTUS, Donald Trump told us. Now, as he predicted, the Chinese are , suddenly, QUITE WILLING to engage in trade talks, in the face of the impending tariffs, courtesy of the President.

Go get 'em, Mnuchin ! Looks like we won the "staring contest" with Red China. Let's see how well we can straighten out the trade policy inequities with them.

Now, let's all grab our popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the leftbubble's frothy-mouthed efforts to pretend that the SUDDEN trade talks, are "unrelated" to the President's economic/trade hardball.

Should be funny...
Global stocks bounce on report of U.S.-China trade talks



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rose almost everywhere on Monday, reflecting optimism that the United States and China are set to begin negotiations on trade.

MSCI’s world equity index, which tracks shares in 47 countries, touched its lowest level since Feb. 9 but was then buoyed to a 1.27 percent gain on expectations that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would try to reach an agreement with China.
Hope of a rapprochement between the countries abbreviated the markets’ hangover about a trade war pitting the world’s two largest economies against one another. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 565.06 points, or 2.4 percent, to 24,098.26, the S&P 500 gained 56.86 points, or 2.20 percent, to 2,645.12 and the Nasdaq Composite added 179.67 points, or 2.57 percent, to 7,172.34.
The powerful rebound reflected the market’s bears are not dead so much as in unseasonably late hibernation. During the day, a weakening U.S. dollar weighed on European stocks, which ended their trading day on weaker footing, while gold gained and oil languished.
“The overall health of the world economy is pretty darn good,” said David Haviland, managing partner at Beaumont Financial Partners LLC and its Beaumont Capital Management division.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN1H201V (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/global-stocks-bounce-on-report-of-u-s-china-trade-talks-idUSKBN1H201V)

[DGUtley]

I am massively concerned about the debt. I would not have lowered personal income taxes, at least not on wage earners at maybe 150+ or something like that. I would have lowered corporate taxes. I would massively cut spending. Mrs. U and I would sit down at the kitchen table and cut that budget up like we've done for nearly 29 years and then we'd eliminate baseline budgeting.

[ripmeister]

I recognize the obvious motivation behind the "concern".

My concern is the continual mounting of debt that my children are going to have to deal with and just to be clear I blame both sides. If you have paid any attention you would know that I tend to be a fiscal conservative. Where I differ with many on the right is where we spend our money. How much we are spending is a problem.

[texan]

Wow! Tax cut. UUUUge omnibus bill. Possible trade war with China who we expect to buy our debt. This kind of stuff is not a zero sum game as the POTUS would seem to think.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/investing/us-debt-sale-record-treasury/index.html

It is like you don't pay attention.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/trumps-trade-talk-may-make-china-willing-to-negotiate-larry-lindsey.html

[texan]

BTW we can "negotiate" the way past presidents have by not using leverage. Or don't even worry about it because they are all being paid off by lobbyists....

[Tahuyaman]

Wow! Tax cut. UUUUge omnibus bill. Possible trade war with China who we expect to buy our debt. This kind of stuff is not a zero sum game as the POTUS would seem to think.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/27/investing/us-debt-sale-record-treasury/index.html


The debt increase isn't because of tax rate cuts. In fact those cuts cause an increase in revenues. Debt is caused by the congress increasing spending at a rate greater than the increases in revenues. The congress is responsible for the debt. People need a civics lesson.

If we could simply limit spending increases to the rate of inflation, we could get the debt under control.

[Grokmaster]

My concern is the continual mounting of debt that my children are going to have to deal with and just to be clear I blame both sides. If you have paid any attention you would know that I tend to be a fiscal conservative. Where I differ with many on the right is where we spend our money. How much we are spending is a problem.
And the last POTUS increased the debt more than every prior POTUS...put together...despite massive tax increases.

Congress needs to STOP SPENDING, which is the cause of our deficits.

Only leftidiots , like CNN, try to pretend tax cuts are "the problem".

[hanger4]

I am massively concerned about the debt. I would not have lowered personal income taxes, at least not on wage earners at maybe 150+ or something like that. I would have lowered corporate taxes. I would massively cut spending. Mrs. U and I would sit down at the kitchen table and cut that budget up like we've done for nearly 29 years and then we'd eliminate baseline budgeting.Aaaaaaah yea, "baseline budgeting", where fools claim a reduction in the increase is a cut.

[ripmeister]

It is like you don't pay attention.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/26/trumps-trade-talk-may-make-china-willing-to-negotiate-larry-lindsey.html

I pay attention. I am aware. This is supposition. I'm talking about the here and now.

[ripmeister]

BTW we can "negotiate" the way past presidents have by not using leverage. Or don't even worry about it because they are all being paid off by lobbyists....
I would not disagree with that.

[ripmeister]

The debt increase isn't because of tax rate cuts. In fact those cuts cause an increase in revenues. Debt is caused by the congress increasing spending at a rate greater than the increases in revenues. The congress is responsible for the debt. People need a civics lesson.

If we could simply limit spending increases to the rate of inflation, we could get the debt under control.
At this moment that simply is not true. The treasuries current tax collections are way down due to the tax cut. That's not to say that it won't increase via the stimulative effects, but I'm not convinced. As far as spending goes I would agree for the most part, but that is slow moving process.

[ripmeister]

And the last POTUS increased the debt more than every prior POTUS...put together...despite massive tax increases.

Congress needs to STOP SPENDING, which is the cause of our deficits.

Only leftidiots , like CNN, try to pretend tax cuts are "the problem".
Obama was forced into a lot of that because of the meltdown. The alternative was unacceptable. Its both revenues and spending that are at play here. The only "idiots" as you like to call them are the ones who don't recognize that relationship.

[Tahuyaman]

The debt increase isn't because of tax rate cuts. In fact those cuts cause an increase in revenues. Debt is caused by the congress increasing spending at a rate greater than the increases in revenues. The congress is responsible for the debt. People need a civics lesson.

If we could simply limit spending increases to the rate of inflation, we could get the debt under control.


At this moment that simply is not true. The treasuries current tax collections are way down due to the tax cut. That's not to say that it won't increase via the stimulative effects, but I'm not convinced. As far as spending goes I would agree for the most part, but that is slow moving process.


My comment is completely true. By the end of the fiscal year revenues will be at a record level.

[Tahuyaman]

Obama was forced into a lot of that because of the meltdown. The alternative was unacceptable. Its both revenues and spending that are at play here. The only "idiots" as you like to call them are the ones who don't recognize that relationship.


Obama's nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan which was passed by the Democrats was a complete scam. It was meant to pay back his and the Democtats big corporate donors. There were no "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs as as he and the Democrats claimed. No one forced them into scamming the American taxpayer.

[ripmeister]

My comment is completely true. By the end of the fiscal year revenues will be at a record level.
The operative word was "current". I hope you are right about the end of the FY.

[ripmeister]

Obama's nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan which was passed by the Democrats was a complete scam. It was meant to pay back his and the Democtats big corporate donors. There were no "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs as as he and the Democrats claimed. No one forced them into scamming the American taxpayer.
:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

The operative word was "current". I hope you are right about the end of the FY.


History is studied for a reason. You learn things from understanding history. Of course it does no good if one is always looking to revise that history.

[Ransom]

History is studied for a reason. You learn things from understanding history. Of course it does no good if one is always looking to revise that history.

donttread

Well said, T.

[donttread]

@donttread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=922)

Well said, T.

Sure you learn from history, we study history, learn and catagorize what we learned. But that doesn't mean we fight in the ME with muskets because we read about them in Civil War history does it? Or that we still expect opposing armies to wear bright colors to stand out on the battle field
But you and your ilk still believe wars can be fought and won like they were when civilians were killed to force military surrender, thus ignoring post WW 2 outcome likelyhoods all together. And that is just one of the obvious flaws of thw-e war emarmoured modern neocon

[Common]

I am massively concerned about the debt. I would not have lowered personal income taxes, at least not on wage earners at maybe 150+ or something like that. I would have lowered corporate taxes. I would massively cut spending. Mrs. U and I would sit down at the kitchen table and cut that budget up like we've done for nearly 29 years and then we'd eliminate baseline budgeting.
That would have been ideal and it would have been ideal since before Reagan but it never happens.

I agree that personal income tax over lets say 250,000 per year income shouldnt have been done. Lower income americans really needed an infusion.

I dont remember in my lifetime the budget ever being cut dramatically, every time its tried congress kills it

[Dr. Who]

The debt increase isn't because of tax rate cuts. In fact those cuts cause an increase in revenues. Debt is caused by the congress increasing spending at a rate greater than the increases in revenues. The congress is responsible for the debt. People need a civics lesson.

If we could simply limit spending increases to the rate of inflation, we could get the debt under control.
That hasn't actually panned out historically and I fear that given today's technology, where jobs are being eliminated by attrition at the very least, in favor of software or hardware that eliminates the need to duplicate a task that has already been done on the supply side, for instance , those tax savings will likely go to more dividends or bigger bonuses rather than into employment. Even in manufacturing, the machinery is becoming far more autonomous, thus requiring fewer employees.

Significantly lower taxation on small business is far more likely to create employment or replace lost incomes. Big business has been on a de-employment trajectory for some time now because it can afford to invest in new technology and is under pressure to deliver bigger dividends to shareholders. Employees are the biggest expense in business. Look at the banks - they only employ a small fraction of the people that they used to employ. Technology has made most of those jobs redundant. People are increasingly turning to self-employment to make a living.

[Tahuyaman]

That hasn't actually panned out historically and I fear that given today's technology, where jobs are being eliminated by attrition at the very least, in favor of software or hardware that eliminates the need to duplicate a task that has already been done on the supply side, for instance , those tax savings will likely go to more dividends or bigger bonuses rather than into employment. Even in manufacturing, the machinery is becoming far more autonomous, thus requiring fewer employees.

Significantly lower taxation on small business is far more likely to create employment or replace lost incomes. Big business has been on a de-employment trajectory for some time now because it can afford to invest in new technology and is under pressure to deliver bigger dividends to shareholders. Employees are the biggest expense in business. Look at the banks - they only employ a small fraction of the people that they used to employ. Technology has made most of those jobs redundant. People are increasingly turning to self-employment to make a living.

Federal debt is a result of overspending, not under taxation. Sheesh......

[Dr. Who]

Federal debt is a result of overspending, not under taxation. Sheesh......

In fact those cuts cause an increase in revenues.
You suggested that lower taxes (on business) cause an increase in revenues. That is what I was addressing. You only get an increase in revenues if more people pay taxes, which means increased employment. If it doesn't result in an increase in employment and therefore taxpayers, those tax cuts actually decrease government revenues. Certainly, overspending does accelerate debt however, I doubt we would necessarily agree as to which programs should be cut. Perhaps the federal government should take a leaf from the private enterprise handbook and invest in technology that might eliminate levels upon levels of redundancy within the administration of government services. It's probably 20 years behind the times.

Here's a question - why is there a need for a census when every legitimate citizen's (or immigrant's) data is stored in bits and pieces on a multitude of government databases. Answer - because the data is not integrated, is on different platforms, some completely archaic with separate IT departments administering them. How is it that dead people can vote - that's why. A significant part of the cost of government is due to the expenses caused by redundancy. It's not just programs that are causing debt, it is the burden of administration.

[Mini Me]

I am massively concerned about the debt. I would not have lowered personal income taxes, at least not on wage earners at maybe 150+ or something like that. I would have lowered corporate taxes. I would massively cut spending. Mrs. U and I would sit down at the kitchen table and cut that budget up like we've done for nearly 29 years and then we'd eliminate baseline budgeting.

Slice fat, skin, bone, brain matter until the beast is dead!

Awesome Vamp, w/Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, Alice Cooper and great song!

https://youtu.be/LNJ9N_KvT0A

[Mini Me]

That hasn't actually panned out historically and I fear that given today's technology, where jobs are being eliminated by attrition at the very least, in favor of software or hardware that eliminates the need to duplicate a task that has already been done on the supply side, for instance , those tax savings will likely go to more dividends or bigger bonuses rather than into employment. Even in manufacturing, the machinery is becoming far more autonomous, thus requiring fewer employees.

Significantly lower taxation on small business is far more likely to create employment or replace lost incomes. Big business has been on a de-employment trajectory for some time now because it can afford to invest in new technology and is under pressure to deliver bigger dividends to shareholders. Employees are the biggest expense in business. Look at the banks - they only employ a small fraction of the people that they used to employ. Technology has made most of those jobs redundant. People are increasingly turning to self-employment to make a living.

This will mean the end of civilization as we know it! RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! If I see a robot handing me my McTrump meal, I will pour my coffee into its "brain" and fry its innards!

[Mini Me]

This will mean the end of civilization as we know it! RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE! If I see a robot handing me my McTrump meal, I will pour my coffee into its "brain" and fry its innards!

I hope the kids doing the "me too" movement rise up against the robot movement, and pursue social justice issues across the board! Otherwise, they will have no future!