Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 55  56  57 

 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Economics 101: Trump-Style


Donald Trump's nationalistic, "America-First," trickle-down economics is destined to cause all kinds of national and international drama -- and significantly damage the American economy.

Strap yourselves in. Here we go....

---
Robbie
8/16/2017, 6:22 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


George Will just told an economics joke on an MSNBC panel discussing the Trump proposed tax cuts as a part of supply-side economics.

Two people are walking down a road. One is a regular person and the other is an economist. The skies open up, and a drenching rain begins to flood the landscape. The regular person says, "We need to get to higher ground!" The economist replies, "Assume a ladder."

 emoticon

Will then goes on to say it is a fallacy to claim a tax cut will stimulate the economy, when the economy is ALREADY at full employment. The unemployment that still exists is primarily from four causes:

1. A mismatch of skills. Millions of jobs are available in the skilled trades, yet most of the unemployed aren't prepared with the skills necessary for those jobs. A whole lot of those who are unemployed could be fully prepared with a one- or two-year tech school program. The answer here is providing education, not an income tax cut (which likely would be paid for by CUTTING spending for education).

2. A mismatch of geography. While unemployment rates are significantly higher in some inner cities and some rural areas, employers are wanting in other regions. Improvements in local transportation would help in some areas, while assistance with the costs of moving to a new location would help others. Income tax cuts won't help with either solution -- and tax cuts would likely be paid for by reducing spending for infrastructure that could have helped with transportation.

3. People who simply are unemployable in their current conditions. Some face chronic mental or physical conditions that prevent them from consistently being able to work. Perhaps better access to doctors and medicines could restore their employability. Some don't have the housing or clothing they need to be presentable every day for work. Perhaps better access to essentials can help them to become desirable to employers. Some are alcoholic or drug-addicted. Perhaps better access to treatment would make them employable once again. In every one of these cases, income tax cuts are useless and will likely be paid for by cuts to services that would actually help them to become employable.

4. People for whom getting a job would actually make their living situation worse. Single parents whose child care costs would be higher than the income they would earn. People who depend on Medicaid to pay for the care of a family member with chronic, expensive illnesses, who would lose that Medicaid if they went to work. People who must stay home to care for chronically ill or disabled family members, who would have to pay more than they could earn for someone to provide that care. None of these situations would be alleviated by income tax cuts, and all would be hurt by any cuts to programs that subsidize expenses for these vulnerable families.

It is critically important to understand that the economy grows when DEMAND increases. Supply-side economics has failed to perform as predicted -- miserably -- each time we have tried it. The number of actual ECONOMISTS who believe in the effectiveness of supply-side economics could fit relatively easily in a Volkswagen Beetle. But Republican POLITICIANS keep up the drumbeat because it provides them cover for further enriching the already-rich.

Don't fall for it.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
9/29/2017, 12:14 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


When Obama was POTUS, we on the right would bemoan the fake unemployment number because it did not include those that had quit looking for employment. Which was a tremendous amount of people.

Of course, now a person that claims to be a Republican is POTUS, those comments don't get thrown around much.

Still, there are a lot of people not working now. I wonder if there is room to bring them back in.

On the plus side, if you have a 401k, you gotta be loving it since the Great Pumpkin was elected. amiright?

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
9/29/2017, 7:51 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


This is a year old but it's as valid now as when it was first written ...

Donald Trump’s experts are basing his trade policy on a remarkably silly mistake

Donald Trump is personally ignorant on every public policy issue I can think of. Every president, however, comes into office with some blind spots and ends up relying on a wider team of aides and advisers.

That’s what makes the wonky white paper on Trump’s economic policy his campaign released on Monday particularly shocking. This is the brain trust that is supposed to backstop Trump’s lack of personal knowledge, and their work is, frankly, shoddy. The authors are Wilbur Ross, a rich private equity investor, and Peter Navarro, an eccentric but well-qualified economics professor at UC Irvine.

There’s a lot going on in the document, much of it more or less standard conservative fare touting the miraculous growth effects of tax cuts for high-income households and drilling for oil. But what’s really telling is the paper’s discussion of trade, which George Mason University’s Scott Sumner describes as “a complete mess,” which, if anything, is too kind.

Trade is a major point of emphasis for Trump personally; it’s an area where he’s broken with most GOP experts and elected officials, and it’s also the main focus of Navarro’s research.

President Trump, in other words, would be a trade policy innovator. And he would be guided on his innovative path by Navarro. Except Navarro is basing his analysis on a mistake that would get you flunked out of an AP economics class.

The Trump campaign’s theory of trade and growth

“When net exports are negative,” Ross and Navarro write, “that is, when a country runs a trade deficit by importing more than it exports, this subtracts from growth.”

They believe that, therefore, we can boost growth by curtailing imports:

To score the benefits of eliminating trade deficit drag, we don’t need any complex computer model. We simply add up most (if not all) of the tax revenues and capital expenditures that would be gained if the trade deficit were eliminated. We have modeled only the impacts of implicit profits and wages, not any other economic aspect of the increased activity.

Trump proposes eliminating America’s $500 billion trade deficit through a combination of increased exports and reduced imports. Again assuming labor is 44 percent of GDP, eliminating the deficit would result in $220 billion of additional wages. This additional wage income would be taxed at an effective rate of 28 percent (including trust taxes), yielding additional tax revenues of $61.6 billion.

Reading this, you might wonder why it is that in the real world economists actually do try to develop complex computer models of the economy. The answer is that the alternative method Ross and Navarro are proposing doesn’t even remotely work.

A simple sanity check

Here’s a quick way to tell that something has gone wrong

CONTINUED

9/30/2017, 7:22 am Link to this post PM shiftless2
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


quote:

shiftless2 wrote:
Except Navarro is basing his analysis on a mistake that would get you flunked out of an AP economics class.



As a retired AP Economics teacher, I can tell you that there are so many flaws in the Trump economists' "theories" that it's amazing they haven't crashed the economy already. Then again, they haven't managed to DO anything yet, so we have that in our favor.

Thanks for the article, Shiftless. It has some good points -- and to discuss ALL of the errors in their thinking would take an article five times as long.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
9/30/2017, 11:06 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


Trump's theory of economics is to get your name on something to be paid for with somebody else's money but where you get a big cut unless it falls flat, but then you get to walk away while the others go bankrupt.
10/4/2017, 6:25 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Swing-seat Republicans squirm over GOP tax plan.


quote:

Republicans are feeling antsy over a key provision in their tax plan that could put some of the party’s most vulnerable members in the House in deeper jeopardy.

The GOP tax plan would raise $1.3 trillion over the next decade by eliminating a deduction for state and local taxes.

The provision would help Republicans pay for lower rates, but could hit people hard in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California.

In the House, Republicans in swing districts disproportionately represent constituencies where the tax deduction is important, creating an immediate campaign ad for Democrats.

A few Republicans are already warning that they’ll oppose their party’s tax overhaul if the deduction is a part of the plan.

“I believe it is critically important to continue the deductibility of state and local taxes. I believe that this is essential to continue this in the code,” said Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), who represents a swing district where Hillary Clinton narrowly defeated Donald Trump in 2016.

“I am a ‘no’ ” on tax reform unless it preserves the deduction, Lance added.

Lance is among the eight GOP lawmakers who represent the top 20 House districts with the greatest percentage of people claiming the state and local taxes deduction in 2014, according to a report from the Tax Policy Center, a think tank that has faced some criticism from Republicans.

The other seven Republicans, like Lance, are all top targets in 2018: Reps. Lee Zeldin (N.Y.), Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.), Peter Roskam (Ill.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Erik Paulsen (Minn.), Mimi Walters (Calif.) and Barbara Comstock (Va.).



Read more here.

This is their chance. What happens if the GOP can't get a tax bill passed? That deduction is a big ticket item for folks in high tax states.
10/4/2017, 7:16 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


What a mess for Republicans.... This is what happens when members of Congress are stuck between right-wing rhetoric of people in safe seats and the very real constituents they were elected to represent.

Will Ryan and crew abandon their dream legislation to make concessions necessary for passage? Or will they take their ridiculous hard line into yet ANOTHER policy failure?

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/4/2017, 10:00 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


Let us hope for the hard line, and that it results in policy failure. But who knows what it would result in? Is anyone a confident prophet anymore?
10/4/2017, 10:22 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


My son Andrew and I disagree about what we should hope for.

He always wants to see the Republicans go out on a ridiculous extremist branch, and then hopes Dems, independents, and moderate Republicans will just saw off that branch and elect the Dem or defeat the policy. Sometimes that works, as the Republican Senatorial candidate five years ago announced during a debate that if a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, that was just God's will, and the woman shouldn't have a choice to get an abortion. That cost him the election.

I don't want to see Republicans out on ridiculous extremist branches, because there are just too many people who blindly vote for the Republican or support the policy because a Republican wants it. (I recognize that some people support Dems in the same way.) But as long as those policies and candidates are out there and supported, there is a danger they will go into place. Witness the election of Trump.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/5/2017, 9:56 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


That's what has sobered me too, Lis,about the give-them-enough-rope-to-hang-themselves philosophy.
10/5/2017, 10:18 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


quote:

Matt O'Brien
@ObsoleteDogma

The killer chart: the top 1% would get 79.7% of all the tax cuts under the Trump plan. The top *0.1%* would get 39.6%.

Image



quote:

John Gill‏
@swfiua 19h19 hours ago

Replying to @ObsoleteDogma @chrislhayes
Trump: not sure we can afford to rebuild PR. Also here is a tax cut for people who don't want for anything

10/5/2017, 12:11 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


And the lies just keep on coming ...

Trump Tax Cut Lie: The Estate Tax Repeal Helps Millions


Here’s the second whopper of a lie that Trump and the Republicans are telling about their plan to cut taxes, particularly the repeal of the estate tax. Trump first lies and says it won’t help him (it saves him more than a billion dollars), then lies and says it helps millions of farmers and small business owners.

quote:

“To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax,” Trump said in his Sept. 27 speech.

He continued, “That means, especially for all of you with small businesses that are really tremendous businesses, you’ll be able to leave them to your family, and your family won’t have to run out and do a fire sale to try and get the money to pay the tax. … The farmers in particular are affected. They have wonderful farms, but they can’t pay the tax, so they have to sell the farm. … So that death tax is a disaster for this country and a disaster for so many small businesses and farmers.”



PolitiFact calls that a pants on fire lie. In reality, the estate tax only affects a few thousand families in the entire country, almost all of them among the richest of the rich.

quote:

In 2017, estates worth less than $5.49 million are exempt from the tax, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Above $5.49 million, the estate is generally taxed at 40 percent. However, family-owned farms and closely-held businesses may be able to pay less or pay in low-interest installments.

So how many estates are affected by the tax? Not many, and the people who pay it are usually among the country’s richest families.
For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return. “After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,460 estates will owe tax,” the center concluded. “Over two-thirds of these taxable estates will come from the top 10 percent of income earners and close to one-fourth will come from the top 1 percent alone.”…

How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017. That would amount to about 1 percent of all payers of the estate tax that year. And the estate tax revenue from small businesses and farms, the center said, would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017.



This is a lie Republicans have told over and over again in their endless attempts to repeal the estate tax, trying to persuade people that it could affect them when it only affects the mega-rich. Lies, lies, lies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/09/30/trump-tax-cut-lie-estate-tax-repeal-helps-millions/

I also have no idea why the Tax Policy Center (cited in the article) thinks that only "11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return" and that only "5,460 estates will owe tax". Estate planning is big business and, in prior lives, I saw any number of structures designed with the express intent of eliminating, or at least minimizing, estate taxes. Given that was hardly the focus of my business I find it hard to believe that the number of affected individuals will be as small as the TPC estimates.
10/5/2017, 12:14 pm Link to this post PM shiftless2
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


Thank you for these two articles, Shiftless. Lie after lie after lie from this administration, and too many people just drool and accept what he's saying is true this time.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/5/2017, 5:57 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Sanders-Cruz Tax and Economics Debate


So I'm watching the debate on CNN (it's still going as of 9:30 Eastern).

Cruz opens by talking about how we now have the widest divide in incomes since the 1920s, and how nearly all of the increase in incomes since the Great Recession has gone to those at the very top. Cruz, of course, blames Obama. He talks about his deep, deep concern for the struggling middle-class and working-class families who are struggling with the burden of federal income taxes. *koff*

Then he goes on to explain why it is so important that most of the tax cut should go to those at the top, because those are the "job creators," and if they just were able to keep more of their income, they will create millions of new jobs. And giving them these big tax cuts will allow them to do that.

Which begs the question....

They're ALREADY seeing virtually the entire increase in incomes. So...why aren't they doing it already?

And the answer is...of course, it doesn't work that way. Companies expand when there is an increase in DEMAND for their product, not just because the government rains a bunch of money on the owners.

Duh.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/18/2017, 8:38 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


.............and the ignorant believe the !@#$ because.......well, it's con-ser-va-tive. I just blasted an OP-ED in the state newspaper a couple of days ago who was flying that !@#$. I pointed out the fallacies in his arguments and how his facts were not right. No rebuttals by the usual suspects in the comments.
10/18/2017, 8:42 pm Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: Sanders-Cruz Tax and Economics Debate


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Then [Cruz] goes on to explain why it is so important that most of the tax cut should go to those at the top, because those are the "job creators," and if they just were able to keep more of their income, they will create millions of new jobs. And giving them these big tax cuts will allow them to do that.




And Lucy tees up the football for Charlie Brown...

---
Robbie
10/18/2017, 8:59 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: Economics 101: Trump-Style


Exactly, Cooter!

Tax cuts for the wealthy do ZERO to improve the economy. The wealthy really do have a limit on what they spend. So tax cuts for them only mean buying more investments. Wonder why stock prices are going up? Largely, it's because the wealthy are bidding up stock prices because of all of the wealth they have amassed. They don't have anything better to do with their money. (And might I add that the increasing stock prices squeeze those with lower and middle incomes out of the ability to get into that gravy train, too.)

Tax cuts for the middle-class, working-class, and poor have SIGNIFICANT effects on the economy -- with the greater effects coming from spending on those with lower incomes. When THEY get a tax cut, they primarily use it to buy things. And that benefits everyone.

I still remember research that was done on a number of programs during the Great Recession. Which one had the most economic impact of all? Unemployment benefits. 96% of those dollars were respent by the recipients. Which ones had the least economic impacts? Corporate welfare. Don't buy the bill of goods they're selling.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/18/2017, 9:12 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Make sure you're sitting down....


(NBC) - Trump: “The country – we took it over and owed over $20 trillion. As you know the last eight years, they borrowed more than it did in the whole history of our country. So they borrowed more than $10 trillion, right? And yet, we picked up $5.2 trillion just in the stock market,” Trump told Sean Hannity. “So you could say, in one sense, we’re really increasing values. And maybe in a sense, we’re reducing debt. But we’re very honored by it.”

This wasn’t just some verbal gaffe. Yesterday afternoon in Harrisburg, during a speech on taxes, he pushed a related point: “Very proudly, just in the stock market alone, we have increased our economic worth by $5.2 trillion, that’s right, since Election Day. $5.2 trillion. Think about that, that’s a quarter of the $20 trillion that we owe.”

This is gibberish. They’re the remarks of someone who doesn’t know what the national debt is. Or how the nation’s finances work. Or even how money works.

Let’s try to make this plain. When the government spends more than it takes in over the course of a year, it runs an annual budget deficit. When this happens repeatedly over the course of several years, the cumulative totals of these deficits is the national debt. Currently, the national debt is, as Trump noted, about $20 trillion.

This was, however, pretty much the only thing he got right. The president believes stock market gains over the last year or so are worth $5.2 trillion, and if he applies that money to paying off the debt, “in a sense” he’s reducing the debt by nearly a fourth.

Except, that doesn’t make any sense at all: unless the White House intends to seize all of that money, the $5.2 trillion isn’t the government’s money. The national debt is still $20 trillion – and growing – whether stock indexes go up or down.

What’s more, instead of “reducing debt,” Trump actually intends to add quite a bit more to the debt with a massive tax-cut package that he and his cohorts have no idea how to pay for.

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
10/22/2017, 1:48 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: Make sure you're sitting down....


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Currently, the national debt is, as Trump noted, about $20 trillion.



That's just the official debt. There are a number of "off balance sheet" items that dwarf that number.

In particular the combined funding shortfall for Social Security and Medicare is in the order of $130 Trillion. Yes that's with a "T" and to put that number in perspective the total value of all real property in the US is about $50 Trillion.

This article dates to 2009 but, as it points out, the funding shortfall increases at a rate of about $2 trillion a year so it's significantly higher now.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/social-security-and-medicare-trying-to-tackle-two-800-pound-gorillas/
10/22/2017, 10:42 am Link to this post PM shiftless2
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 55  56  57 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top