Tax reform

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This thing was a wealth transfer from the many tomorrow to the few today. It will never pay for itself.

Where’s the coffee man? I’d like to talk about Bugtussle, and what it will be like there after he passes out of this world.

 

He bailed.  I suspect he will be back at some point.

Edited July 12, 2018 by zork

[Message Board User 12389]

I used to be against things like free college tuition, universal healthcare, and $15 minimum wage, but if we're gonna run up the debt anyway, we might as well give the benefits to those who need it (working and middle class) than those who don't.

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

Yeah, imagine what it would be like if we spent less on healthcare paperwork. What a nightmare that would be.

[relapse98 634]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah, imagine what it would be like if we spent less on healthcare paperwork.

I have to think at this point its basically a federal jobs program, just like the military, and that getting rid of it will bring about large amounts of unemployment. The whole coding, explanation of benefits, racket is a giant waste of time that appears to needlessly employ millions in the pursuit of inefficiency.

[Tuco 5076]

Not surprising, but worth shouting from the rooftops because there are enough Republicans who still pretend like the tax cut is paying for itself.

U.S. budget deficit totals $74.9 billion in June

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — The federal government recorded a $74.9 billion deficit in June, a month when the government often runs a surplus, as corporate taxes dropped sharply compared to a year ago.

The Treasury Department reported Thursday that the June deficit pushed the imbalance so far this year to $607.1 billion, 16.1 percent higher than the same period a year ago.

.......

The government has run a surplus in June in all but 12 of the past 64 years because it is a month when quarterly tax payments are due from both corporations and individuals. The new report showed that corporate tax payments fell by 33 percent from a year ago and so far this budget year, which began on Oct. 1, are running 20 percent below the same period a year ago.

 

[Js1 85109]

BUT BUT RECORD REVENUES!!!!!!! (in April lol)

[HenryJames 65890]

Vern Buchanan bought yacht after voting for House version of GOP tax bill

[Anastasis 23395]

On 7/11/2018 at 8:38 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yeah, imagine what it would be like if we spent less on healthcare paperwork. What a nightmare that would be.

"I am from the government and I am here to reduce your paperwork."

Edited July 13, 2018 by Anastasis

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

51 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

"I am from the government and I am here to reduce your paperwork."

Funny. 
I am from reality and I'm here to reduce your ignorance.
As you know, our system is so bad it's even more duplicative and wasteful than government programs. 

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Not surprising, but worth shouting from the rooftops because there are enough Republicans who still pretend like the tax cut is paying for itself.

U.S. budget deficit totals $74.9 billion in June

 

 

June '18 had a yuge increase in interest expense wrt the rest of the months in FY '18:

• Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2018
  June	$95,841,040,916.14
  May	$35,599,408,856.32
  April	$41,940,836,111.17
  March	$38,504,166,996.29
  February	$28,434,208,619.08
  January	$27,814,982,228.45
  December	$84,559,272,909.62
  November	$38,014,414,561.75
  October	$24,411,569,716.36
  Fiscal Year Total	$415,119,900,915.18

It might just be an anomaly(look at Dec '17 for instance) but rates are up for sure.  Which will impact all months going forward.   

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Nary a spending cut as far as you can see into the future.

[Anastasis 23395]

20 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Funny. 
I am from reality and I'm here to reduce your ignorance.
 As you know, our system is so bad it's even more duplicative and wasteful than government programs. 



You won't get any argument from me that our overall health care provisions is inefficient and has a fundamentally flawed incentive structure. Those data support the conclusion on inefficiency overall. Also according to that chart, the US-based compulsory health insurance schemes (what we think of as government schemes, CMS) appears to be less efficient than the government schemes of almost every other country on the chart (Few exceptions when you combine government and cumpulsory: Mexico, Germany, Slovak).  And within the US, the compulsory government scheme is roughly similar in efficiency, at least in terms of their contribution to overall admin share of NHE, to the voluntary health insurance schemes (private insurance).  Seems to me that what we have is a fundamental problem in the administrative efficiency of healthcare delivery, which is amplified by the somewhat unique private/government mix in the US versus the rest of the world. Wonder if that broad inefficiency has anything at all to do with the healthcare financial paperwork that have reference numbers that start with letters like HCFA and CMS, the associated regulatory burden, and compliance overhead. Nah probably just a coincidence. 

 

Meh, I've outlined a universal healthcare scheme on this board that would bring our administrative overhead down, would generate more market dynamic, align incentives with outcomes rather than services, and provide a social safety net. But it, nor any other reasonable and balanced approach, won't happen.  If you dream of a day when we get a single payer system, or at a minimum a public option, it is coming.  And if I had to wager, 5 years after that rolls out, we'll still be sitting at 8% +/-.    

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You won't get any argument from me that our overall health care provisions is inefficient and has a fundamentally flawed incentive structure. Those data support the conclusion on inefficiency overall. Also according to that chart, the US-based compulsory health insurance schemes (what we think of as government schemes, CMS) appears to be less efficient than the government schemes of almost every other country on the chart (Few exceptions when you combine government and cumpulsory: Mexico, Germany, Slovak).  And within the US, the compulsory government scheme is roughly similar in efficiency, at least in terms of their contribution to overall admin share of NHE, to the voluntary health insurance schemes (private insurance).  Seems to me that what we have is a fundamental problem in the administrative efficiency of healthcare delivery, which is amplified by the somewhat unique private/government mix in the US versus the rest of the world. Wonder if that broad inefficiency has anything at all to do with the healthcare financial paperwork that have reference numbers that start with letters like HCFA and CMS, the associated regulatory burden, and compliance overhead. Nah probably just a coincidence. 

 

Meh, I've outlined a universal healthcare scheme on this board that would bring our administrative overhead down, would generate more market dynamic, align incentives with outcomes rather than services, and provide a social safety net. But it, nor any other reasonable and balanced approach, won't happen.  If you dream of a day when we get a single payer system, or at a minimum a public option, it is coming.  And if I had to wager, 5 years after that rolls out, we'll still be sitting at 8% +/-.    

I think we mostly agree on how to provision and pay for care, and you are probably right about how much we would would wind up spending on administration in the aggregate with a public payor, although I'd be willing to bet that the public payor would probably wind up in the 5% range and the private sector would drive the number up. 

As you know, my preference is an almost totally private universal solution, as outlined in Wyden Bennett. I think that's the best path for our country and would put the most downward pressure on cost while providing higher service to nearly everyone. But at this point I'd take a public option or even a vertical "single payer" system as a next step. We've just got to find a way to bring cost down. 

[El Guapo 16]

I think we mostly agree on how to provision and pay for care, and you are probably right about how much we would would wind up spending on administration in the aggregate with a public payor, although I'd be willing to bet that the public payor would probably wind up in the 5% range and the private sector would drive the number up. 

As you know, my preference is an almost totally private universal solution, as outlined in Wyden Bennett. I think that's the best path for our country and would put the most downward pressure on cost while providing higher service to nearly everyone. But at this point I'd take a public option or even a vertical "single payer" system as a next step. We've just got to find a way to bring cost down. 

,,

[Anastasis 23395]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

We've just got to find a way to bring cost down. 

WB would have been light years better than ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that we have to bring down costs, but in the grand scheme of things, administrative expenses aren't driving NHE.  It's like talking about Departments of Agriculture and Energy expenditures in a discussion about how to rein in federal spending.  The cost centers are hospitals, devices, providers, and Rx drugs. Three of those four, hospitals, devices, and Rx drugs operate at low to mid double digit margins compared to admin cost centers operating at low to mid single digit margins. If you want to control healthcare costs over the next 25 years, you have to tackle drug and hospital pricing and implement strategies to manage utilization of the high cost services and optimize outcomes when high cost services are required.  Of course, the investments associated with doing those things is something that you would mark to the administrative side of the ledger and frame as "wasteful". 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

predictable: wages flat despite tight labor market. 

REAL EARNINGS*JUNE 2018

 

Quote

All employees

Real average hourly earnings for all employees increased 0.1 percent from May to June, seasonally 
adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This result stems from a 0.2-percent 
increase in average hourly earnings combined with a 0.1-percent increase in the Consumer Price Index 
for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Real average weekly earnings increased 0.1 percent over the month due to the change in real average 
hourly earnings combined with no change to the average workweek.  

Real average hourly earnings were unchanged, seasonally adjusted, from June 2017 to June 2018. Real 
average hourly earnings combined with a 0.3-percent increase in the average workweek resulted in a 
0.2-percent increase in real average weekly earnings over this period.


Production and nonsupervisory employees

Real average hourly earnings for production and nonsupervisory employees increased 0.1 percent from 
May to June, seasonally adjusted. This result stems from a 0.2-percent increase in average hourly 
earnings combined with a 0.1-percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners 
and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).

After combining the change in real average hourly earnings with no change in average weekly hours, 
real average weekly earnings were unchanged over the month.

From June 2017 to June 2018, real average hourly earnings decreased 0.2 percent, seasonally adjusted. 
Combining the change in real average hourly earnings with a 0.3-percent increase in the average 
workweek resulted in no change to real average weekly earnings over this period.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Incredulity 11564]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

predictable: wages flat despite tight labor market. 

REAL EARNINGS*JUNE 2018

 

 

I honestly question the accuracy of this report.  It certainly doesn’t line up with the reality I am living in.

Labor is extremely tight and wages/pay has increased a good bit.

Obviously, that is only my little world. However, it is reinforced by damn near every peer I talk to.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I honestly question the accuracy of this report.  It certainly doesn’t line up with the reality I am living in.

Labor is extremely tight and wages/pay has increased a good bit.

Obviously, that is only my little world. However, it is reinforced by damn near every peer I talk to.

 

I think you should get out more, because you are questioning well sourced primary data on the exclusive basis of your little world, as you say.
The labor market is my industry is paying well and has the kind of modest but steady wage growth Americans took for granted a generation ago. But what side of the automation wave are you on? Like everyone else in tech, I'm fundamentally in the disruption business. That tends to pay well. The people in the industry we deliver innovation and greater efficiencies to are the ones who have wages that aren't growing, and the benefits of tax reform aren't going to be investment in lower returns on capital. 
 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[The People’s Elbow 707]

18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I honestly question the accuracy of this report.  It certainly doesn’t line up with the reality I am living in.

Labor is extremely tight and wages/pay has increased a good bit.

Obviously, that is only my little world. However, it is reinforced by damn near every peer I talk to.

 

Sounds like confirmation bias masking as intellectual curiosity. 

[Incredulity 11564]

That’s fine, I fully acknowledged it is only my experience.

 I am not saying its the tax cuts or Trump.  

My world has gone from good(stable) to regardedly busy in the last 3 years. I do Project Management for Commercial and Industrial clients in multiple states .  So I am dealing with blue collar workers and white collar managers.  Every trade is dying for help and paying more to keep what they have from getting poached.  Now granted the client side is usually optimistic  because that business is growing, but the freak out factor is kind of at a high point when someones fuck up delays something.

Maybe next week I will do some phone polling of Doctors, Lawyers and “Tech Disrupters” to round out my bias.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Headline: the job creators created more jobs to help their profits but don’t want to pay the employees more because the expense eats into revenue and profit. News at 11.

and thanks to our government policy, they’re getting their wish by increasing profit without the increase in expense. More news at 11. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by JimmyJames

[dOUblewide 101]

On 7/13/2018 at 8:58 AM, Tuco said:

Not surprising, but worth shouting from the rooftops because there are enough Republicans who still pretend like the tax cut is paying for itself.

U.S. budget deficit totals $74.9 billion in June

 

 

Also from your Link: 

Quote

Through the first nine months of this calendar year, revenues have totaled $2.54 trillion, an increase of 1.4 percent from the same period a year ago. Government spending has totaled $3.15 trillion, an increase of 3.9 percent from a year ago.

Maybe the tax cuts have yet to help or hurt revenue. It will take time to tell. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

Maybe the tax cuts have yet to help or hurt revenue. It will take time to tell. 

That’s an irrelevant question. Stimulus stimulates. That’s not what stimulus does, that’s what stimulus is.

The relevant question is if they pay for themselves over time. This one won’t.

 

[Tuco 5076]

Maybe the tax cuts have yet to help or hurt revenue. It will take time to tell. 

The 2018 revenue collection includes April collections based on 2017 tax law and economy. Collections based on 2018 tax law are down.

[Post Oak 20184]

On 7/11/2018 at 11:46 AM, FWD said:

 

 

We should just resort to throwing rocks at republicans when they talk about taxes

[zork 629]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s an irrelevant question. Stimulus stimulates. That’s not what stimulus does, that’s what stimulus is.

The relevant question is if they pay for themselves over time. This one won’t.

 

Revenues are up, spending is up more.  

[Tuco 5076]

12 hours ago, zork said:

Revenues are down, spending is up more.  

Fixed it for reality.

 

[zork 629]

16 hours ago, Incredulity said:

I honestly question the accuracy of this report.  It certainly doesn’t line up with the reality I am living in.

Labor is extremely tight and wages/pay has increased a good bit.

Obviously, that is only my little world. However, it is reinforced by damn near every peer I talk to.

 

What that report is doing is showing the nominal, not including inflation, wages are ticking up but then smoothed back down with the CPI.(so real wages account for inflation while nominal does not)  

[Storm the Field 5273]

On 7/15/2018 at 7:37 PM, zork said:

Revenues are up, spending is up more.  

Since we're talking about FY 2018, we're talking about the period from 10/17-9/18:

Monthly revenues were up (compared to FY 2017) for October-January, prior to tax cuts kicking in. Since then, April has been only month with higher receipts than FY 2017.

Revenues are way down the past 2 months. At this rate, by the time July numbers roll in, 2017 receipts will likely outpace 2018.

May 2017: $240B
May 2018: $217B

June 2017: $338.6B
June 2018: $314B

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Storm the Field said:

Since we're talking about FY 2018, we're talking about the period from 10/17-9/18:

Monthly revenues were up (compared to FY 2017) for October-January, prior to tax cuts kicking in. Since then, April has been only month with higher receipts than FY 2017.

Revenues are way down the past 2 months. At this rate, by the time July numbers roll in, 2017 receipts will likely outpace 2018.

May 2017: $240B
May 2018: $217B

June 2017: $338.6B
June 2018: $314B

And spending? 

[Storm the Field 5273]

WH Budget Office just quietly revised their pie-in-the-sky estimates from earlier this year. Now predicting that Trillion dollar deficits return next year and last through 2021:

Surely the old Tea Party guys will dust off their Founding Father costumes and be out in the streets by the thousands demanding Trump's head this fall!

Did Emory make it over to the new board? Surely he's outraged about this generational theft!!!!!!!

Edited July 17, 2018 by Storm the Field

[Storm the Field 5273]

1 minute ago, zork said:

And spending? 

Also up. You get a 50%.

[zork 629]

Just now, Storm the Field said:

Also up. You get a 50%.

I was for spending cuts before it was cool. 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53821

Spending up 5%(lots of it was interest expense increases)

 

[David Dennison 18656]

If you vote for Republicans because you are a fiscal conservative, you are deluding yourself. You might as well vote for Democrats because you probably agree with them on social issues. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by David Dennison

[Incredulity 11564]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you vote for Republicans because you are a fiscal conservative, you are deluding yourself. You might as well vote for Democrats because you probably agree with them on social issues. 

[David Dennison 18656]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Because you can't defend Republican fiscal policy.

Cool.

[Incredulity 11564]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Because you can't defend Republican fiscal policy.

Cool.

[zork 629]

Quote

Though the economy grew at just a 2 percent pace in the first quarter, Powell said growth in the second quarter was "considerably stronger than the first."

"Robust job gains, rising after-tax incomes, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending in recent months. Investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate," he said. "Good economic performance in other countries has supported U.S. exports and manufacturing. And while housing construction has not increased this year, it is up noticeably from where it stood a few years ago."

Inflation is running around the Fed's 2 percent target for the first time in several years, while the unemployment rate is at 4 percent and consistent with a level that most economists consider near to full employment. Powell said wages are growing faster than a year ago but not enough to stoke inflation fears.

Powell made brief mention of the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and its global competitors, saying only that it is "difficult to predict" what the ramifications will be on the economy.

However, the "upbeat tone" from the testimony likely means the trade issues won't keep the Fed from hiking rates, said Andrew Hunter, U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/powell-backs-more-rate-hikes-as-economy-growing-considerably-stronger.html

[Lagunamadre 1975]

Man, this this kind of crushes every GOP talking point. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/397445-white-house-budget-projects-1-trillion-deficit-in-2019

[zork 629]

I mis-interpreted the last paragraph.

Edited July 17, 2018 by zork
I mis-interpreted the last paragraph.

[sidis 9749]

[Mojo Hand 4580]

57 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If you vote for Republicans because you are a fiscal conservative, you are deluding yourself. You might as well vote for Democrats because you probably agree with them on social issues. 

nm.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Washpark 176]

 

[Js1 85109]

Okay, so anyone who votes R in 2018 should be subject to a 10% add-on tax when they file their returns to help pay it down. Since it's not paying for itself.

[Foosters 17732]

On 7/15/2018 at 3:38 PM, JimmyJames said:

Headline: the job creators created more jobs to help their profits but don’t want to pay the employees more because the expense eats into revenue and profit. News at 11.

and thanks to our government policy, they’re getting their wish by increasing profit without the increase in expense. More news at 11. 

Jeff Bezos has so much money, he tells people that he doesn't know what to do with it. His solution? Fund private space exploration.  

Meanwhile, his workers rely on food stamps and piss into plastic bottles during work because bathroom breaks cut into productivity.  

[Tuco 5076]

11 minutes ago, Washpark said:

 

Any idea why they have the deficit to GDP percentage on a negative scale?  I would imagine with sequestration and the improving economy, deficit to GDP would have been reducing from 2013 to 2017, but the chart shows it going a greater absolute value. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Tuco

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

Any idea why they have the deficit to GDP percentage on a negative scale?  I would imagine with sequestration and the improving economy, deficit to GDP would have been reducing from 2013 to 2017, but the chart shows it going a greater absolute value. 

I don't know the reasons, but that's how the CBO presents it as well.  I would guess it's because surpluses intuitively should be above 0 and deficits below.

I would also imagine the reason the deficit is up over that period is that growing outlays outpace economic gains.  Mandatory spending would destroy any progress made by sequestration.

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

Oh hai guys - 

Remember back on the shag when I said that the middle class wouldn't respond politically to the cut because they wouldn't see enough of the benefit, and that any multiplier of this stimulus plan would be weak because the supply side stimulation would be blunted by the Fed tightening rates? Well, they haven't responded, and it was weak, and they have raised rates, so here comes the President after misunderstanding his first macro lesson to complain about things:

Quote

Trump pulls the Federal Reserve into his trade war

President Trump swiped at the Federal Reserve while criticizing China and the European Union in tweets on Friday, complaining that currency manipulation is "taking away our big competitive edge. ... As usual, not a level playing field."

Data: Money.net; Chart: Axios Visuals

Why it matters: The trade war between the U.S. and other countries is shifting into a currency war. This is the second time this week Trump has roiled currency markets with comments about Fed policy. The dollar fell shortly after Trump's tweets.

Show less

• Our thought bubble... Axios' Dan Primack says: "Trump pledged during the campaign to label China a currency manipulator but, once in office, chose against actually doing so. Probably because his own Treasury Department said it wasn't true."

Donald J. Trump

 

✔@realDonaldTrump

 

 

China, the European Union and others have been manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars gets stronger and stronger with each passing day - taking away our big competitive edge. As usual, not a level playing field...

7:43 AM - Jul 20, 2018

•  
  39.6K
•  
  17.1K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

Donald J. Trump

 

✔@realDonaldTrump

 

 

....The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?

7:51 AM - Jul 20, 2018

•  
  46.6K
•  
  20.7K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

Go deeper: The WSJ's Greg Ip on what Trump is missing with his Fed criticism.

• "Mr. Trump is especially upset by the dollar’s rise, which threatens to widen the trade deficit which he badly wants to shrink. Yet the Fed is the secondary player here. The dollar is up against the euro because Mr. Trump’s tax cut is lifting U.S. growth above Europe’s."
• "The bigger problem—for the president and the Fed—is optics. ... His schedules show that since becoming chairman, he has not met with Mr. Trump; given the arched eyebrows it’s sure to provoke, he’ll think twice before doing so now. And that’s a pity because there may be times, for example during a crisis, when for the good of the country he should."

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bat Guano 359]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh hai guys - 

Remember back on the shag when I said that the middle class wouldn't respond politically to the cut because they wouldn't see enough of the benefit, and that any multiplier of this stimulus plan would be weak because the supply side stimulation would be blunted by the Fed tightening rates? Well, they haven't responded, and it was weak, and they have raised rates, so here comes the President after misunderstanding his first macro lesson to complain about things:

 

It's more important to assign blame than to solve the problem. Or understand the problem.

[Francisco 2.0 32333]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

Quote

The amount of corporate taxes collected by the federal government has plunged to historically low levels in the first six months of the year, pushing up the federal budget deficit much faster than economists had predicted.

The reason is President Trump’s tax cuts. The law introduced a standard corporate rate of 21 percent, down from a high of 35 percent, and allowed companies to immediately deduct many new investments. As companies operate with lower taxes and a greater ability to reduce what they owe, the federal government is receiving far less than it would have before the overhaul.

Quote

The Trump administration had said that the tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating increased revenue from faster economic growth, but the White House has acknowledged in recent weeks that the deficit is growing faster than it had expected. The Office of Management and Budget said this month that it had revised its forecasts from earlier this year to account for nearly $1 trillion of additional debt over the next decade — on average, almost $100 billion more a year in deficits.

In the trough of the Great Recession in 2009, when companies were laying off hundreds of thousands of workers each month, corporate tax collections plunged by almost a third. It was the largest quarterly drop since the Commerce Department began compiling the data in the 1940s. No other period came close — until this year.

From January to June this year, according to data from the Treasury Department, corporate tax payments fell by a third from the same period a year ago. The drop nearly reached a 75-year low as a share of the economy, according to federal data.

Quote

As the tax bill was debated last year, the Trump administration argued that losses from the cuts would be offset by increased economic growth. Companies would use money that had previously gone to taxes, the argument went, to invest in their businesses and workers, giving the government a smaller slice — but out of a bigger pie.

But the drop in tax payments has come as the American economy is already the healthiest it has been since the crisis, raising questions about whether the deficit could balloon further if growth begins to slow. The Commerce Department on Friday will announce its first estimate of gross domestic product in the second quarter, and forecasters anticipate it could reach 5 percent, the highest rate since 2014. Analysts, however, expect growth to slow in the second half of the year, as interest rates continue to rise and trade tensions weigh on the economy.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

So...even shittier than predicted. I'm actually impressed.