Jump to content

The Trump Economy: 3.2% GDP 1st Qtr 2019

JustBecause

By JustBecause
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

yoladu

yoladu 4094

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I agree- but probably not for the reason you wish.  I too was Surprised that Obama cound not come in and fix the most fucked up economy in 25 years, in six months!!! Especially with McConnell's STATED goal was have Obama be "a one term President, not to repair the economy. The GOP not wanting to provide extensive actual stimulus was a big part of this equation, instead tax cuts as always were the GOP cure were what was needed to bring the GOP into legislation. Legislation needed to fix the can they kicked down the road on their watch.  Of course tax cuts don't factor in much as any sort of stimulus for the unemployed, but were awesome for GOP donors!  Just like the current GOP stimulus via tax cuts stimulus plan.  I even notice a pattern here. Anyone else?  I am also happy that the Dems at least tried to take on a big issue, health care.  We are still (as always) waiting for the GOP's plan, until after then next election. Then the GOP lied about healthcare, created the falsehood of death panels and really tried to restrict spending and preserve tax cuts for the weatlthy. 

Austerity measures forced onto Obama by the GOP are of course the exact opposite of what the GOP does today.  When in total control we got massive deficit increases, massive tax decreases and no worries at all on the spending/borrowing side.  The reason is the GOP actually has no fiscal policy whatsover,  beyond spending massively in times of plenty when in power for political reasons.  And instisting on Austerity when out of power... for political reasons.  

So that's the more complete reason for the shit show.... and the GOP was the anus of the economic shit show during that period you refer to yolado.

i don't disagree with anything you posted here, my comment was merely apolitical

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19084

Posted
Posted
On 5/3/2019 at 1:32 PM, Chrispy said:

Well, team blue is pissed. 

We're not pissed. There are a lot of measures of a successful presidency, and the economy is just one of them.  And there are many ways to run an economy.  Some are good long term, some are only good short term.  Some come with lots of negative externalities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just thought I would give all the Trump supporters devoid of knowledge of tariffs and their effects on the economy, to voice their support for President Trump's latest taxation on the American People.  I guess I might also mention that Trump is looking for $15 billion (more than three times what he robbed for his wall) from TAXPAYERS (trump doesn't pay taxes) to.... help American Farmers (read: giant conglomerates) avoid the economic outcome from his stupidity on tarriffs.  

"We are right where we want to be" our moronic President tweeted regarding his failed negotiations with China this morning, before the markets shed 500+ points. I guess if you knew what stupid shit our President was about to tweet, you could make some excellent coin shorting the markets on Trump's moronic utterances.  Thank God trump inherited a vibrant economy from Obama or we would really be in the shitter.

 

Edited by horn4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29352

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, CO Horn said:

So, let me get this straight.  Tax Revenues are increasing and deficit is increasing with the Republicans in control.  Does not compute!

It'll end up being the next Democratic president's fault (if there ever is one), the same way a lot of these morons now blame Obama for not preventing the 2008 financial crisis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34236

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2019 at 1:18 PM, CO Horn said:
So, let me get this straight.  Tax Revenues are increasing and deficit is increasing with the Republicans in control.  Does not compute!

Conveniently hidden behind the pay wall:
"Individual income taxes were essentially flat in the wake of the tax cut, but corporate income taxes were down"

Basically, the taxes that the editorial board is bragging about being up are payroll taxes, the vast majority of which are paid for by average Joes (since SS is capped) and which conservatards never seem to acknowledge when they talk about poors not paying taxes.

There's also Trump's tariffs but that's also mostly a burden on the poors.

 

basically, we're borrowing a lot more money from wealthy people and china in order to keep the poors from eating the wealthy people while shifting the overall burden of taxation further down the wealth curve.  rational policy!

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27659

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

Yep, thought the article was topical to this thread.  

I think you thought the headline of the article was topical, but it was misleading for those who got through the paywall to actually read the content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17854

Posted
Posted

Damn, a 500 word opinion piece on the state of the economy that, despite its brevity and lack of analysis, still manages to blame Obama and attack the "Russian Hoax."  

Shoulda just scribbled a drawing with crayons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27659

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

How was it misleading? Revenues are increasing. 

 

Revenue from payroll taxes, which we pay, but not corporate income tax revenue. So the claim that the corporate tax cuts are increasing revenue is misleading as it implies that corporations are paying in more through volume, when really it's regular Joe's earning hourly wages generating the increase in revenue

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

Revenue from payroll taxes, which we pay, but not corporate income tax revenue. So the claim that the corporate tax cuts are increasing revenue is misleading as it implies that corporations are paying in more through volume, when really it's regular Joe's earning hourly wages generating the increase in revenue

It states explicitly in there that Corporations are not paying more through volume.  They are paying less.  Joe is paying more as more Joe's are working/getting paid more, which is great

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20396

Posted
Posted (edited)

David Stockman goes OFF on Trump and his henchmen.  This might be one of the most beautiful things I've ever read:

 

Quote

What we mean is that the Donald is home alone in the Oval Office with no one to restrain his abysmally bad instincts on trade and economic policy – nor to filter the incoming data and real world conditions through a lens other than that of his overweening ego and self-absorbed delusion that it’s all about him.

That is, Mnuchin is an 80-pound weakling who gives “yes men” a bad name; Kudlow has been snorting bullish ethers down on Wall Street for so long he ceased being an “economist” decades ago; Peter Navarro is a deranged Sinophobe who is actually rooting for war with China; Wilbur Ross may or may not still have a pulse and has trade views only slightly less primitive than the Donald’s rank mercantilism; and the whole show is in the hands of a hard-core beltway protectionist, Robert Lighthizer, who has spent 40-years in the Imperial City helping to put girth on Leviathan as, how and whenever possible.




https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/05/david-stockman/defcon-donald/

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27659

Posted
Posted
Just now, babysdaddy said:

It states explicitly in there that Corporations are not paying more through volume.  They are paying less.  Joe is paying more as more Joe's are working/getting paid more, which is great

Joes aren't getting paid appreciably more. Total compensation growth is right around 3%, and yet the consumer price index growth is at 2%, so there's really only a 1% increase in compensation, which means that yes businesses are hiring more, but they aren't paying more. It's not that joes are working more to earn more, but that more joes are working for the same wages. Which sure, it increases payroll tax revenue, but that's being paid for partially by Joe. So the corporate tax cut really only increased taxes on Joes while giving businesses a freebie on taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Joes aren't getting paid appreciably more. Total compensation growth is right around 3%, and yet the consumer price index growth is at 2%, so there's really only a 1% increase in compensation, which means that yes businesses are hiring more, but they aren't paying more. It's not that joes are working more to earn more, but that more joes are working for the same wages. Which sure, it increases payroll tax revenue, but that's being paid for partially by Joe. So the corporate tax cut really only increased taxes on Joes while giving businesses a freebie on taxes.

You added in appreciably more.  Then you said said they weren't paying more.  Then you correctly pointed out that Joe is paying a portion of the payroll tax (the other group paying that btw, is the Corporation).  And the Joe's payroll tax increased because a Joe that was not working is now working.  Hard to argue a guy paying payroll taxes this year versus last year or two years ago when he wasn't because he wasn't working as a 'tax increase'.  Fuck, I paid a shitload more in taxes last year versus the year before because I made more.  I'm all for those tax increases.

So taking your paragraph and saying it another way, corporations have increased their wages paid by adding more employees and thus increasing their payroll tax paid as well.  Some of this was because the economy started its trend of improving during Obama's first term.  Some of it's growth continued due to the corporate tax rate decrease.  Both can be true.  

Edited by babysdaddy
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27659

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

It states explicitly in there that Corporations are not paying more through volume.  They are paying less.  Joe is paying more as more Joe's are working/getting paid more, which is great

So overall, you're happy with joes shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden than corporations? You think that's a good thing, when the majority of expenditures and assets lie with corporations, not people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2721

Posted
Posted

Is it a binary choice?  I don't think I said that. 

I don't have time to look but Corporate taxes paid to the US vs. Payroll taxes would probably look very similar, regardless of tax rates, over history.  I'm going to guess the gross number comparison would not achieve the point you're trying to make.  I'll try to look tonight.

You also won't ever see me arguing about "the poors not paying taxes" because we all know they do, if they are working, in the form of payroll tax.  and sales tax.  and gas taxes. and and and and.  they just might not pay federal income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27659

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

A 3% increase in payroll taxes to me does not equate to job creation, it's essentially a cost of living adjustment.  

You're telling me a 1.5 trillion dollar increase in the national debt isn't worth a 3% payroll tax increase??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85316

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why are you people ("you people") arguing about WHO is paying more taxes when the main point is that revenue is up yet the debt is up?  "Fiscal responsibility" my ass.

Psh, this is American fiscal policy in a nutshell - government and household. "I got a raise, we're going to Disneyland and putting it ALL on the credit card!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout

Quote

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

1558663309761-pol.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9927

Posted
Posted

One of my political mentors once told me:  The hard part about presidenting is you can't really control when you catch a recession.  Catch it at the beginning?  You saved the country.  Catch it at the end?  It might take your party 30 years to recover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21152

Posted
Posted
On 5/14/2019 at 11:38 AM, wildcat09 said:

It'll end up being the next Democratic president's fault (if there ever is one), the same way a lot of these morons now blame Obama for not preventing the 2008 financial crisis.

Let's just update this.  Anybody with a half a brain (so about 75% of this country) will definitely blame Trump.  Because this shit is about to get really nasty.  This is a guaranteed recession. And when we could have been doing something...shithead called it a hoax. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted

- tax cuts to corporations and top earners gave us a big deficit and removed some levers that might be handy now.

- trade wars.

- shitting on our allies.

- mismanaging the pandemic.

- slowing immigration.

I think there are a lot of things to put the blame on potus. The Trump Recession seems like an appropriate label/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

- tax cuts to corporations and top earners gave us a big deficit and removed some levers that might be handy now.

- trade wars.

- shitting on our allies.

- mismanaging the pandemic.

- slowing immigration.

I think there are a lot of things to put the blame on potus. The Trump Recession seems like an appropriate label/

Saddest part of all is he's not done yet and we have about seven months to go. As he said, "THINK ABOUT THAT!!" I know I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34236

Posted
Posted

january 20, 2021, is 10 months and 9 days.

 

can we get rid of lame ducks?  it's 2020.  there's no reason dead hands should be in power for months afterward doing whatever nefarious shit they can think of (see: wisconsin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

One of my political mentors once told me:  The hard part about presidenting is you can't really control when you catch a recession.  Catch it at the beginning?  You saved the country.  Catch it at the end?  It might take your party 30 years to recover.

Didn't even know you were Republican, nor do I care.  There has not been a solid GOP handoff in a very, very long time. Reagan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20564

Posted
Posted (edited)

As always, presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy.  With that being said, his re-election chances have got to be done, right?  The only thing he had going for him was the stock market run up and we're now barely above where we were at his inauguration and probably drop below there next week.  The election is 8 months away but I don't see enough of a recovery by then to make much difference.  This is going to sink him just like 2008 sunk McCain's chances.

Edited by WBT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45678

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, WBT said:

As always, presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy. 

Generally true, but in this case, this dipshit is absolutely responsible, at least for the depths to which it is crashing.  A sane, rational president would at least have been able to mitigate it somewhat.  He actively makes it worse.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...