The Trump Presidency – 2016

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'll agree on that. I'm pretty much against increasing the debt in most cases but I wouldn't argue that some debt is maybe better than others. I just find it amusing when the am at the gym and every news channel is running GOP congressmen praising the plan and Democrat congressman screaming "Debt! Debt!" It's an interesting world we live in where people are so blinded by ideology that debt is good for your team and bad for others. It's bad all the time!

I find it amusing that you didn't complain about the debt aspect of this proposal before attacking the one team you really dislike. Your attempt at neutrality and displaying ideological purity is not very convincing.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I find it amusing that you didn't complain about the debt aspect of this proposal before attacking the one team you really dislike. Your attempt at neutrality and displaying ideological purity is not very convincing.

I said it sounded good for me personally, somebody pointed out the dependent thing and I changed my mind. I had heard prior it was only for really rich people.

As far as disliking one party more than the other... I don't find many politicians I like in either party. Ron/Rand Paul in the GOP and maybe Dennis Kucinich when he was in Congress. This board is just very left leaning so the debates tend to seem more against them. What's to defend with Trump? He's a worthless president of whom my only hope is that he keeps us out of a war. Laughing at and criticizing Democrats doesn't need to equate to supporting Republicans. What's good about any of them?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Y
But fiscal responsibility stopped being a GOP value around 20 years ago.

27 years ago.

[Atocep]

If Obama had made a comment on Twitter using a racist term against white people while how many minutes would it have taken for someone from the GOP to ask for his impeachment.

Trump does it and it's just another Friday.

As for fiscal responsibility, it comes down to how much additional depth helps the people of this country. In order to pay for the massive cuts to taxes for businesses they're going to end up cutting social programs. The Trump administration has already shown they have no problem targeting programs that help the poor and middle class.

This is the same bullshit economics Republicans sell to the public and its never worked. Kansas thought they could lower taxes on businesses and the economic growth would cover the lost tax income. It destroyed their economy. Trickle down is a republican scam that they continue to sell to uneducated voters.

[corbes]

Benjamin Wittes on DJT and the rule of law:

“The Saddest Thing�: President Trump Acknowledges Constraint - Lawfare

tldr:

Trump is menacing the norm of independent law enforcement. He is chomping at the bit to do violence to it. But at least for now, it is holding. It remains strong enough that Trump can fulminate all he wants about how the Justice Department should be investigating Hillary Clinton and he can spit fire about the fact that Sessions hasn’t done more to “protect” him. Yet Mueller grinds on and does his job. The FBI grinds on and does its job. And the Justice Department grinds on and does its job. And the President finds it the “saddest thing” that none of their jobs, as our democratic polity has determined them to be over a long period of time, includes fulfilling his undemocratic aspirations to loose investigators on people he doesn't like or to have a Justice Department that protects him and his family and his campaign from scrutiny. The saddest thing indeed. It's a stunning statement of presidential constraint by the rule of law, if not a statement of belief in it: Trump actually declared this week that while he aspires to corruptly interfere with law enforcement, he just can't pull it off.
This is not an argument for complacency. A President who aspires to undemocratic behaviors can whittle away at norms over time. The total absence of civic virtue in the man—what Comey called “the nature of the person”—is profoundly dangerous. Who knows how long the chains will hold him, particularly in the absence of a Congress that cares about his predations and in the presence of a political base that seems to revel in them?
Yet seeing Donald Trump chafe with frustration at what he cannot do—at least not yet—is a moment to warm the democratic heart. It is as vivid a portrait as I have ever seen of the American government structurally limiting the impulse to tyranny.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by panerd

This a yahoo message board? Nothing like an over the top reaction there.

Almost as cringeworthy as "LOLDems", which you so thoroughly articulated.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is the same bullshit economics Republicans sell to the public and its never worked. Kansas thought they could lower taxes on businesses and the economic growth would cover the lost tax income. It destroyed their economy. Trickle down is a republican scam that they continue to sell to uneducated voters.

Louisiana as well.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'll agree on Clinton. He is my favorite president in my lifetime. I disagree on the crisis nonsense. I'll give you 2008 up to even 2012 (though I would say it's a stretch) Please go find just one post from 2013-2016 where you talk about debt being an issue with Obama. Only one is needed and I will eat crow. Or did the "crisis" go all the way up until Trump's inauguration?

1

2

3

4

5

[Kodos]

.

[larrymcg421]

That's what happens when you make the same fucking post over and over again.

[Thomkal]

U.S. Army's Bergdahl spared prison for deserting in Afghanistan

Trump thinks he should have been executed.

And yes Donald, climate change is a hoax:

Trump administration releases report finding 'no convincing alternative explanation' for climate change

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have to have a good laugh at this one. The Democrats are suddenly fiscally responsible?

Did a pretty good job under Clinton. Obama cut the deficit by almost two-thirds. When you look at what Reagan, the Bushes, and now what Trump wants to do, I'd argue that the Democrats have been the fiscally conservative party.

If you add new programs, you need to also find the revenue to pay for it. If you want to cut revenue, you need to cut the spending somewhere. Democrats at least have abided by the first one, Republicans don't abide by the second.

[RainMaker]

One of the things that bugs me about the selling of the tax proposal is the supposed "simplifying" of it. You can fill it out on one small card!

That'd be a nice feature 30 years ago when we'd sit around doing this shit by hand. But just about everyone just plugs their info into a computer program and it spits out what you need. It's honestly not that confusing to file your own taxes these days.

I'd also add that while I benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, it is kind of a bullshit deduction pushed by the real estate industry. I'm fine with eliminating it if the revenue wasn't just going toward the cutting of rich people taxes.

[PilotMan]

Kind of ironic considering the report that came out today.

Republican tax plan kills electric vehicle credit | Ars Technica

[Thomkal]

Twitter employee who deactivated Trump's account on last day told to 'get a lawyer'

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That'd be a nice feature 30 years ago when we'd sit around doing this shit by hand. But just about everyone just plugs their info into a computer program and it spits out what you need. It's honestly not that confusing to file your own taxes these days.

I heard a bit of an interview on CNN the day this came out, and the subject came off as if taxes were a challenging thing for him. Spoke in real simple terms (and ignored or intentionally misunderstood most of what was being asked of him for pre-packaged soundbytes).

Of course I think it was the Ways and Means chairman...

[BBT]

So Donna Brazile was full of it...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...c-deal-n817411

Turns out the memo Donna spoke about applied only to the general election. If so then this memo is standard operating procedure for 15 years https://t.co/fsU1kMZoSp

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) November 3, 2017

[JPhillips]

I'll grow old and die before this primary is over.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Did a pretty good job under Clinton. Obama cut the deficit by almost two-thirds. When you look at what Reagan, the Bushes, and now what Trump wants to do, I'd argue that the Democrats have been the fiscally conservative party.

If you add new programs, you need to also find the revenue to pay for it. If you want to cut revenue, you need to cut the spending somewhere. Democrats at least have abided by the first one, Republicans don't abide by the second.

Nah. See, what happens is, when they want to cut taxes, they also bleat about how the social safety net is destroying America and that we need to dismantle it so that people can bootstrap themselves into untold millions. They're perfectly fine cutting spending when it comes to cutting revenue, as long as that spending is intended to help the poors not be poor.

Cutting spending has never been the problem. The problem is that there's a push-and-pull effect for conservatives when it comes to government spending. The impulse to tax cuts is probably equal with the impulse to SPEND MOAR on the military; as you whack a few tens of billions from the social safety net to "pay for" tax cuts, there's always someone who'll go "the military needs another $50 billion this year you don't hate America surely."

It isn't that Republicans don't abide by logical necessities so much as that they have diametrically opposed Pavlovian reactions where spending is concerned. They can't help themselves. Their view of "the greatest country in the world" is "fuck you, got mine" with a healthy dash of "we need to have the firepower of the next ten militaries combined because we secretly don't think our military's training and professionalism could take any of those countries in a straight up fight."

[digamma]

Originally Posted by digamma

It's a big tax cut for 1%ers who are not W2 employees or people who utilize SPVs or other vehicles to operate businesses. Like, you know, real estate developers.

We were joking yesterday that our CEO would, under this proposal, have a significantly lower tax rate than a good portion of our employees despite making significantly more money.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Nah. See, what happens is, when they want to cut taxes, they also bleat about how the social safety net is destroying America and that we need to dismantle it so that people can bootstrap themselves into untold millions. They're perfectly fine cutting spending when it comes to cutting revenue, as long as that spending is intended to help the poors not be poor.

Cutting spending has never been the problem. The problem is that there's a push-and-pull effect for conservatives when it comes to government spending. The impulse to tax cuts is probably equal with the impulse to SPEND MOAR on the military; as you whack a few tens of billions from the social safety net to "pay for" tax cuts, there's always someone who'll go "the military needs another $50 billion this year you don't hate America surely."

It isn't that Republicans don't abide by logical necessities so much as that they have diametrically opposed Pavlovian reactions where spending is concerned. They can't help themselves. Their view of "the greatest country in the world" is "fuck you, got mine" with a healthy dash of "we need to have the firepower of the next ten militaries combined because we secretly don't think our military's training and professionalism could take any of those countries in a straight up fight."

They also know that they can't seriously cut Medicare or Social Security without destroying their base. Given that military, SS, and healthcare are the big parts of the budget, they can't cut anywhere near enough to cover their tax cuts.

[larrymcg421]

This article pretty much sums up my feelings on DFA's moronic statement on the VA governor's race. Every day, I grow to hate the left wing of the party more and more.

The Most Self-Righteous Political Act of 2017 Just Took Place in the VA Governor’s Race

[Edward64]

Not everyone is going to be happy; some will benefit and others will not; some will benefit more than others.

The important thing to me is will this tax plan grow the "economy" significantly and will it help sustain the stock market?

Regardless of what I think about Trump, I believe it will and that's a good thing.

Is the deficit a consideration? Sure but I think we've seen both parties lie about it when its their time in/out of power. All things held equal, if the deficit grows regardless of party in/out of power, then I certainly want more robust economic growth and stock market gains.

Does Trump get all the props for both, no because Obama certainly laid the foundation to stabilize things after the Great Recession. Trump hasn't screwed things up (so far) on the economy and stock market so he does get credit here.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The important thing to me is will this tax plan grow the "economy" significantly and will it help sustain the stock market?

Regardless of what I think about Trump, I believe it will and that's a good thing.

What examples do we have of a tax plan like this growing the economy? We have multiple showing it can actually slow economic growth.

[Edward64]

I think the bottom line angst to many people is -

If the rich and corporations are paying less taxes, where will current social/entitlement/defense programs be funded from?

Unless the economy grows larger/faster where tax collections exceeds the cuts, that probably means the social/entitlement/defense programs will have to be reduced.

And that's where the rubber hits the road ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What examples do we have of a tax plan like this growing the economy? We have multiple showing it can actually slow economic growth.

You don't believe corporate tax cuts will increase economic growth?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You don't believe corporate tax cuts will increase economic growth?

Cutting corporate taxes will not boost American wages | Economic Policy Institute

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/...conomic-growth

For a recent example check out the cooperate tax cuts Kansas tried and the impact it had on their economy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Cutting corporate taxes will not boost American wages | Economic Policy Institute

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/...conomic-growth

For a recent example check out the cooperate tax cuts Kansas tried and the impact it had on their economy.

On your first link, I'm actually not associating corporate tax cuts with wage growth.

On your second link, looks like a toss up to me.

[Edward64]

So I'm all for Trump allowing the release of info relevant on the JFK assassination but am troubled by the additional MLK stuff, not sure why they released the MLK notes. I don't think its a Trump thing/ploy to stir things up ...

The MLK files are pretty critical of him and there are probably some truth but its not as if JFK (or other powerful men) haven't had their indiscretions.

JFK Files: New documents allege Martin Luther King Jr. had secret affairs, orgies | The Sacramento Bee

The National Archives published more than 600 new records Friday relating to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy -- and some addressed civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. and his multiple alleged affairs.

The FBI document, titled “Martin Luther King, Jr. A Current Analysis” and dated March 12, 1968, compiled background information on King, including his influences, associates, alleged affairs and more. King was assassinated April 4, 1968.

“The course King chooses to follow at this critical time could have momentous impact on the future of race relations in the United States,” the 20 page document’s introduction reads. “And for that reason this paper has been prepared to give some insight into the nature of the man himself as well as the nature of his views, goals, objectives, tactics and the reasons therefor.”

One of the sections in the document in the section titled “King’s Personal Conduct” mentioned alleged affairs, which were alluded to in the 2014 film “Selma” and an infamous letter from the FBI urging King to commit suicide.

[JPhillips]

Ryan is touting an analysis that says the tax bill will create one million jobs.

5 trillion/1 million = 5 million dollars per job created

I hope somebody is clever enough to point this out.

[NobodyHere]

Rand Paul assaulted at Kentucky home: police | TheHill

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You don't believe corporate tax cuts will increase economic growth?

It didn't in 2004 when they allowed companies to repatriate money at a 5% rate. In fact, a few years later we saw one of the biggest recessions in our nation's history. It'll make some major shareholders happy as dividends could go up. I'm sure bonuses will be bigger for top execs. But how exactly does it help everyone else?

Here's the huge flaw in their thinking. Companies already do everything in their power to maximize profits. If $1 of R&D equals $2 in profit, they'll spend as much as they possibly can in R&D until that profit is no longer attainable. A company will hire the least amount of labor to reach the maximum amount of profit. Giving Pepsi an extra billion in cash doesn't mean they run out and hire people. If they felt it was a good decision to hire more people, they would do it without this tax cut.

Every single time they do a repatriation, the benefits that these politicians claim will come from it never do. It's just a cash grab for giant companies who don't want to pay taxes to a country they benefit a great deal from.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

where will current social/entitlement/defense programs be funded from?

Hence my general (key word) support of the cuts, 2 of those 3 should be nowhere near the size they are now.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It didn't in 2004 when they allowed companies to repatriate money at a 5% rate. In fact, a few years later we saw one of the biggest recessions in our nation's history. It'll make some major shareholders happy as dividends could go up. I'm sure bonuses will be bigger for top execs. But how exactly does it help everyone else?

Here's the huge flaw in their thinking. Companies already do everything in their power to maximize profits. If $1 of R&D equals $2 in profit, they'll spend as much as they possibly can in R&D until that profit is no longer attainable. A company will hire the least amount of labor to reach the maximum amount of profit. Giving Pepsi an extra billion in cash doesn't mean they run out and hire people. If they felt it was a good decision to hire more people, they would do it without this tax cut.

Every single time they do a repatriation, the benefits that these politicians claim will come from it never do. It's just a cash grab for giant companies who don't want to pay taxes to a country they benefit a great deal from.

This a 1,000 times over.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It didn't in 2004 when they allowed companies to repatriate money at a 5% rate. In fact, a few years later we saw one of the biggest recessions in our nation's history. It'll make some major shareholders happy as dividends could go up. I'm sure bonuses will be bigger for top execs. But how exactly does it help everyone else?

Here's the huge flaw in their thinking. Companies already do everything in their power to maximize profits. If $1 of R&D equals $2 in profit, they'll spend as much as they possibly can in R&D until that profit is no longer attainable. A company will hire the least amount of labor to reach the maximum amount of profit. Giving Pepsi an extra billion in cash doesn't mean they run out and hire people. If they felt it was a good decision to hire more people, they would do it without this tax cut.

Every single time they do a repatriation, the benefits that these politicians claim will come from it never do. It's just a cash grab for giant companies who don't want to pay taxes to a country they benefit a great deal from.

I'm not sure I follow the logic on your first paragraph to second. I'm not talking about repatriating overseas $. Its the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% that I am referring to.

On your second paragraph, I agree that its not just about hiring more people, those days are long gone. Give Pepsi and extra billion in cash they they likely will invest some in hiring, also in technology e.g. robotics, also in additional R&D, and yes, also paying out dividends. Don't think that's a bad thing.

I have seen studies that say reducing personal income tax rates do not necessarily impact the economy. I haven't seen much on corporate tax rates.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure I follow the logic on your first paragraph to second. I'm not talking about repatriating overseas $. Its the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% that I am referring to.

It's the same concept as the repatriating. They were allowed to bring in money from overseas at a much lower rate. That lower rate and extra money didn't go toward the middle or lower class. So why would this tax cut go toward the middle class?

Originally Posted by Edward64

On your second paragraph, I agree that its not just about hiring more people, those days are long gone. Give Pepsi and extra billion in cash they they likely will invest some in hiring, also in technology e.g. robotics, also in additional R&D, and yes, also paying out dividends. Don't think that's a bad thing.

If Pepsi felt more employees or more R&D led to higher profits, why wouldn't they just do it now?

[JPhillips]

It's a supply side solution for what certainly looks like a demand side problem. Instead of spending five trillion and hoping that that equals a million jobs, how about spend one trillion on infrastructure and put a shit ton of people to work.

There are an enormous amount of things that need doing that will put people to work, but we can't do any of it because socialism. But I guess if they were to give me five million dollars I'd hire one guy to do my lawn or clean my house or something.

[cuervo72]

Get another guy and they'll give you $300 million to power an island.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's the same concept as the repatriating. They were allowed to bring in money from overseas at a much lower rate. That lower rate and extra money didn't go toward the middle or lower class. So why would this tax cut go toward the middle class?

I don't think its the same thing. Only some companies have the offshore assets to repatriate whereas the 35% to 20% is wholesale. The scale is significantly different.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If Pepsi felt more employees or more R&D led to higher profits, why wouldn't they just do it now?

Per my earlier post, its not just hiring people and its not just R&D. There are various reasons -- cash flow, they don't want to take the risk, payback period may be too long (e.g. 5 years), they want to spend money on hiring or building plants overseas, political uncertainty, they want to pay dividends etc.

[miked]

I don't get your logic (over and over). If Pepsi could make more money by any of those things (R&D, robotics, etc), they would already be doing it. Pepsi is not waiting for a big tax break to make more money. What always happens is that the money goes to the executives as bonuses and big time shareholders.

This idea that businesses and rich people are just waiting for a tax cut to make more money is absurd.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

I don't get your logic (over and over). If Pepsi could make more money by any of those things (R&D, robotics, etc), they would already be doing it. Pepsi is not waiting for a big tax break to make more money. What always happens is that the money goes to the executives as bonuses and big time shareholders.

This idea that businesses and rich people are just waiting for a tax cut to make more money is absurd.

I'm not saying businesses and rich people are waiting for a tax cut to make more money. I'm not sure where you got that from my posts?

What I am saying is if a company can plan for an extra $1B in 2018 to free up due to reduced corp taxes, they will use it -- it won't just be only on employees or wages (nor should it be).

On your question on why Pepsi/company is not already doing R&D, robotics etc. if they can make money? Possible answers are (1) they are already doing it but an additional $1B sure would help to extend/expand what they are doing or (2) they don't have available cash flow to pursue because their budget is allocated to other things.

[JPhillips]

According to some quick research Pepsi has 10 billion in cash or cash equivalents. Why would an additional billion make any difference to their plans?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

According to some quick research Pepsi has 10 billion in cash or cash equivalents. Why would an additional billion make any difference to their plans?

I wasn't really thinking about Pepsi specifically since I don't think anyone here knows their cash situation or strategic priorities. It was just a company name to use. If the $1B example isn't appropriate, scale it up to where it is significant for a Pepsi.

[JPhillips]

According to public filings, Pepsi has 10 billion in cash or cash equivalents, so what would Pepsi do with 11 or 15 or 20 billion that they don't have enough cash to do today?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

According to public filings, Pepsi has 10 billion in cash or cash equivalents, so what would Pepsi do with 11 or 15 or 20 billion that they don't have enough cash to do today?

Beats me what their strategic imperatives are but some ideas ...

Maybe they want to make sure they have enough of a rainy day fund to continue being a Dividend Aristocrat? Maybe they need to keep that reserve/cushion amount because that's what stockholders expect (e.g. if they have $0, stockholders would worry)? Maybe something hasn't come up that gives them the ROI/payback period they want? Maybe they want to save up the money to possibly buy Coca-Cola? Maybe they are investing the money and getting 18% YTD return and they figure this is better than anything else they can spend the money on?

Alot of maybes and there's probably 10 more. What is your theory?

[mckerney]

Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation - NBC News

LOCK HIM UP!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Beats me what their strategic imperatives are but some ideas ...

Maybe they want to make sure they have enough of a rainy day fund to continue being a Dividend Aristocrat? Maybe they need to keep that reserve/cushion amount because that's what stockholders expect (e.g. if they have $0, stockholders would worry)? Maybe something hasn't come up that gives them the ROI/payback period they want? Maybe they want to save up the money to possibly buy Coca-Cola? Maybe they are investing the money and getting 18% YTD return and they figure this is better than anything else they can spend the money on?

Alot of maybes and there's probably 10 more. What is your theory?

The point isn't that they should or shouldn't be doing X with their cash, it's that having more cash, through a corporate rate cut, won't cause them to do anything productive for the economy. They have the money currently to hire 10,000 more employees, but they don't, so it is very unlikely having more cash will lead to more jobs.

Paul Ryan brags that his plan will mean 5 million in lost revenue for each job created. That sounds terrible to me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The point isn't that they should or shouldn't be doing X with their cash, it's that having more cash, through a corporate rate cut, won't cause them to do anything productive for the economy. They have the money currently to hire 10,000 more employees, but they don't, so it is very unlikely having more cash will lead to more jobs.

Paul Ryan brags that his plan will mean 5 million in lost revenue for each job created. That sounds terrible to me.

I don't think a net increase in employees/jobs is necessarily the goal as we already have pretty low employment rate.

How about small businesses who don't have this cash hoard, would they spend the savings on themselves personally or plough some of it into the business? or possibly new small business that are created because of the business friendly environment?

[JPhillips]

I'm sure it will make the wealthy more wealthy.

I doubt it will do much of anything else. Our problems are wages, inequality and labor force participation. I don't see how this tax bill does anything to help in those areas.

[Edward64]

No doubt those are pretty significant issues. I'm happy with strong economic and stock market growth to start of with.

Let's revisit this thread topic after 2-3 years after passage and see where we are on economic growth and the stock market.