I have a feeling you’re just commenting without any thought or knowledge but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask if you mean true wage growth?
Economists Credit Trump as Tailwind for U.S. Growth, Hiring and Stocks
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
I have a feeling you’re just commenting without any thought or knowledge but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask if you mean true wage growth?
So funny that deficits, wealth disparity and inflation all become an issue when a Republican is in office. When a Democrat is there doing the exact same thing folks like you find all manner of reasons to support their actions.
You should come out from under the rock you've been living under. These concerns are always an issue.
But let me make it clear that deficits are much less of an issue, and inflation slightly less of an issue, with me personally, and with most economists, then they are with the general public. I'll add that since I am on the receiving end of the trickle-down-boys largesse, I have no reason to complain about wealth disparity except for not wanting to live in a country where I have to hire personal security and am afraid to get out of my car when I drive to town. It is my own self interest that causes me concern about the outsized and growing wealth disparity in my country. As we just learned, the U.S. is the only country among the industrialized ones where longevity is declining and infant mortality is rising. This is shocking to me!
Economists understand that government finances are very different from personal finances, but there are widespread misunderstandings among the public who, in general, only understand personal finances and assume incorrectly that government finances are just like their own finances, except that government can steal from them whenever it runs out of money.
Last edited:
This is the kind of disingenuous nonsense one has to deal with.
Deficits declined under Obama, he increased taxes on the rich - Obamacare was literal wealth distribution. Inflation also hit lows.
Now Cons are reversing all that which is why they have become 'issues' again.
Absolute nonsense. The above post is disingenuous, you are completely ignorant or you are knowingly lying.
1. 1st of all the expected impact of tax cuts between reagan and trump are virtually opposite.
look at the charts here. I am against Trump's deal because he did not cut taxes for working people enough.
and it is nothing like Reagans 1986 tax cut.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-13
or read this article...
Chuck Schumer: Donald Trump's tax reform is nothing like Ronald Reagan's
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...onald-reagans-chuck-schumer-column/803754001/
The 1986 tax act went through a bipartisan process and eliminated corporate tax breaks. Trump's is being rushed through and favors the rich.
2. you just made massive assumptions about what causes revenues to go up which can never be proven. I would never say (in a serious thought out response) we know tax cuts caused revenues go up because we are in a dynamic system. No one really knows.
3. Rest of your assumptions about compression of brackets in nonsense.
For instance after the Bush tax cuts the top 1 percent paid more in taxes.
Wealth disparity increases because you should not be taxing the bottom 99.5 percent of the country. Let them keep them money and invest and grow and let generational wealth accumulate.
4. Finally there was an economic boom for 30 years after reagans tax cuts.
only leftist trogs try to downplay that reality. it happened probably for a host of reasons. Some were perhaps psychological, some were because communism fell because Reagan spent on star wars and Russian generals lost there grip. Some were because of the great tax cuts.
5.Part of our economic disparity today is caused by the fact we have taken in 60 million immigrants and anchor babies since Reagan was elected... and many not only don't pay taxes they receive help.
look at the charts here. I am against Trump's deal because he did not cut taxes for working people enough.
and it is nothing like Reagans 1986 tax cut.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-13
or read this article...
Chuck Schumer: Donald Trump's tax reform is nothing like Ronald Reagan's
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...onald-reagans-chuck-schumer-column/803754001/
The 1986 tax act went through a bipartisan process and eliminated corporate tax breaks. Trump's is being rushed through and favors the rich.
2. you just made massive assumptions about what causes revenues to go up which can never be proven. I would never say (in a serious thought out response) we know tax cuts caused revenues go up because we are in a dynamic system. No one really knows.
3. Rest of your assumptions about compression of brackets in nonsense.
For instance after the Bush tax cuts the top 1 percent paid more in taxes.
Wealth disparity increases because you should not be taxing the bottom 99.5 percent of the country. Let them keep them money and invest and grow and let generational wealth accumulate.
4. Finally there was an economic boom for 30 years after reagans tax cuts.
only leftist trogs try to downplay that reality. it happened probably for a host of reasons. Some were perhaps psychological, some were because communism fell because Reagan spent on star wars and Russian generals lost there grip. Some were because of the great tax cuts.
5.Part of our economic disparity today is caused by the fact we have taken in 60 million immigrants and anchor babies since Reagan was elected... and many not only don't pay taxes they receive help.
I knew that the above graphs are what you were referring to and that is way I stated that your post was disingenuous.
You stated that deficit declined under Obama. That is a lie. Period. You posted a chart of the deficit-to-gdp ratio. The deficit and deficit-to-gdp ratio are not the same thing you moron.
You should not be calling people morons.
If you are comparing multiple years, how are you supposed to show deficits when other conditions have changed? This is the problem with you dumb Cons, you use raw numbers where they are not applicable and then complain when numbers are presented with context.
Nobody said deficit and deficit to gdp numbers are the same, without using gdp as a normalizing factor, you can't use numbers like the deficit or tax revenues (which has direct relation to deficits).