Trump Will Make Us All Rich

[Flopper]

And increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts. unless it is accompanied by significant tax cuts.

You and no one else knows that. You're talking speculation.

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a looser. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.


http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.


Lower tax rates, economic expansion and Congress is forced to make huge cuts in spending?
With a plan like that, he could win 45 states.

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes.

You said, "Congress would have to make huge spending cuts". Sounds like you meant requirement.

Yes, require.
The House would send a draft of the legislation for the tax plan to the CBO to determine the budget impact. The CBO would estimated the impact on budget taking into account the projected economic growth effect on revenue. The CBO, just like the Brookings Institution will report a huge budget deficit because they will use the same economic model. The House would require major cuts and that would be the end of the legislation. This all assumes it get's past Paul Ryan. The House republicans will probably introduce there own tax reform plan which may or may not contain elements of Trump's plan.

 

[protectionist]

1. because if you did, you wouldn't be waiting for the donald to get it for you.
2.reorganizatons are bankruptcies. you should learn something. and he screwed his vendors on every one of them. go read up on bankruptcy laws. but thanks for the talking points. you should probably talk to people who actually know something about economics.
3. normal economists. not the hacks that trump is citing... just like his yes man doctor who says he will be the "healthiest president ever"... that's retarded. and the fact that you believe anything this wacko says is bizarre.
4.inheriting daddy's wealth and assigning a multi-billion dollar value to one's own name (hence him "feeling" what his net worth is instead of what it is in reality) does not make him equipped to run a country.
5. you probably shouldn't think a reality show host and huckster with a trash mouth and the working vocabulary of a 6 year old is equipped for the presidency.

1. I didn't say I was waiting for the Donald to get it for me.
2. I taught economics in college, and owned my own business for 12 years. If Trump had 4 bankruptcies thats about .005% of his businesses and investments = a 99,5% success rate (top of the line) Thanks for the talking point. Actually, I already had it.
3. You refer to the Trump-basher hacks. Ho hum. Yawn ***
4. You obviously haven't done your homework. Trump inherited about $ 1 million when his father died in 1999, which was a drop in the bucket to Trump by that time. It has a negligible effect on Trump's finances. You also seem to have not noticed Trump's properties, or are pretending you haven't.
5. You definitely SHOULD think that a multi-billionaire protectionist, who isn't afraid to criticize what needs to be criticized, is equipped for the presidency.

 

[protectionist]

you mean the real estate portfolio where he took people's money then bellied up, costing them their investments?

Trump's astounding business successes are the reason for his political successes. People think if he can do all that for himself, then he can do it for the country. For all of us.

 

[protectionist]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a looser. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

 

[protectionist]

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

 

[jillian]

1. because if you did, you wouldn't be waiting for the donald to get it for you.
2.reorganizatons are bankruptcies. you should learn something. and he screwed his vendors on every one of them. go read up on bankruptcy laws. but thanks for the talking points. you should probably talk to people who actually know something about economics.
3. normal economists. not the hacks that trump is citing... just like his yes man doctor who says he will be the "healthiest president ever"... that's retarded. and the fact that you believe anything this wacko says is bizarre.
4.inheriting daddy's wealth and assigning a multi-billion dollar value to one's own name (hence him "feeling" what his net worth is instead of what it is in reality) does not make him equipped to run a country.
5. you probably shouldn't think a reality show host and huckster with a trash mouth and the working vocabulary of a 6 year old is equipped for the presidency.

1. I didn't say I was waiting for the Donald to get it for me.
2. I taught economics in college, and owned my own business for 12 years. If Trump had 4 bankruptcies thats about .005% of his businesses and investments = a 99,5% success rate (top of the line) Thanks for the talking point. Actually, I already had it.
3. You refer to the Trump-basher hacks. Ho hum. Yawn ***
4. You obviously haven't done your homework. Trump inherited about $ 1 million when his father died in 1999, which was a drop in the bucket to Trump by that time. It has a negligible effect on Trump's finances. You also seem to have not noticed Trump's properties, or are pretending you haven't.
5. You definitely SHOULD think that a multi-billionaire protectionist, who isn't afraid to criticize what needs to be criticized, is equipped for the presidency.

no offense, but economists are horrified of this guy. and if you really taught economics, in college or otherwise, you'd never delude yourself about his guy's abilities or think any president is giving you a $100,000 net worth.

you'd probably also know how little that is.

 

[jillian]

you mean the real estate portfolio where he took people's money then bellied up, costing them their investments?

Trump's astounding business successes are the reason for his political successes. People think if he can do all that for himself, then he can do it for the country. For all of us.

which proves once again that you aren't an economist.

any economist would be talking about the dangers of the trade war being sought by this guy.

perhaps you should discuss this issue with Toro, he actually knows what he's talking about on the subject

 

[Flopper]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a loos

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

er. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion, building a wall that Homeland Security says they don't need at 10 to 20 billion. Yeah, this guy is a real conservative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a loos

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

er. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion, building a wall that Homeland Security says they don't need at 10 to 20 billion.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion,

How much did it cost for those 11 million to get here?

 

[jillian]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a loos

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

er. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion, building a wall that Homeland Security says they don't need at 10 to 20 billion.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion,

How much did it cost for those 11 million to get here?

seriously?

 

[Flopper]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a loos

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

er. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion, building a wall that Homeland Security says they don't need at 10 to 20 billion.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion,

How much did it cost for those 11 million to get here?

I don't know but the cost of arrest, detention, prosecution, and deportation will be a hell of a lot more and that doesn't include a 11.8 billion dollar a year loss in taxes, the replacement of a million farm workers, nor the economic impact on local economies.

 

[Pogo]

You definitely SHOULD think that a multi-billionaire protectionist, who isn't afraid to criticize what needs to be criticized, is equipped for the presidency.

Essential things that need to be criticized like....

Megyn Kelly's misogyny questions..............

John McCain having the temerity to get captured while Rump was home slacking in NY sex clubs....

The congential joint condition of a reporter who points out one of his many fabrications....

The size of his own hands (and rumpledforsekin).....

The owners of the Chicago Freaking Cubs.....

 

[Rshermr]

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

I have to admit, I have not read the entire Trump proposal thoroughly. But I did look it over, and I did read several analyses of the plan. All suggest little to no changes in spending. But as it stands, it is likely to increase the national debt greatly. By something over $9.5 Billion in the first 10 years, and more ongoing.

That is theory. If we look at history, we can look at 1981 when the tax rate was drastically reduced. And you could see, if you did, MAJOR spending cuts. Now, of course, as any rational person would understand, there were corresponding cuts in federal programs, with resulting MAJOR increases in the unemployment rate. From around 7.1% to over 10.8% within a two year period.

In addition, you would see that the then Pres, R. Reagan, saw the national debt raise. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. Increased the debt by more than all the previous presidents combined. COMBINED. And 'achieved" the statistic of having the 2nd highest unemployment rate of 10.8% in US history, with only the unemployment rate of 1931 being higher!!

So, you have three choices: Raise taxes (as Reagan did 11 times) or stop spending decreases, and allow the national debt to soar. And/or spend like crazy, and not worry at all about the national debt.

The Trump proposal is, according to the analysis so far, a really stupid idea. Simple plan for simple minds. But we should all wait to see what the CBO has to say. Not that they will be able to be perfectly accurate, but they will be honest and closer than most.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a loos

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

er. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

I saw their assessment. It's shortsighted.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion, building a wall that Homeland Security says they don't need at 10 to 20 billion.

Like deporting 11 million at a cost of 400 to 600 billion,

How much did it cost for those 11 million to get here?

I don't know but the cost of arrest, detention, prosecution, and deportation will be a hell of a lot more and that doesn't include a 11.8 billion dollar a year loss in taxes, the replacement of a million farm workers, nor the economic impact on local economies.

and that doesn't include a 11.8 billion dollar a year loss in taxes,

Or the multiples of that in savings for our schools, hospitals and prisons.

I don't know but the cost of arrest, detention, prosecution, and deportation will be a hell of a lot more

Kick out a couple of thousand and sell off their possessions to pay their fines, they'll start to leave on their own.

the replacement of a million farm workers

After we get rid of the illegals and get control of the border, we can set up a temporary worker program if we have to. Come here for a few months, earn your money and leave. No staying and having kids.

nor the economic impact on local economies.

Yes, there will be benefits to local economies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

Trump's tax plan does not require any cuts in spending just reductions in taxes. Anyone that thinks the House is going to pass a huge tax cut with no cuts in spending has his head up Trump's ass. Paul Ryan would not let this plan see the light of day in the House.

Tax Reform

He has proposed big cuts in spending.

I have to admit, I have not read the entire Trump proposal thoroughly. But I did look it over, and I did read several analyses of the plan. All suggest little to no changes in spending. But as it stands, it is likely to increase the national debt greatly. By something over $9.5 Billion in the first 10 years, and more ongoing.

That is theory. If we look at history, we can look at 1981 when the tax rate was drastically reduced. And you could see, if you did, MAJOR spending cuts. Now, of course, as any rational person would understand, there were corresponding cuts in federal programs, with resulting MAJOR increases in the unemployment rate. From around 7.1% to over 10.8% within a two year period.

In addition, you would see that the then Pres, R. Reagan, saw the national debt raise. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. Increased the debt by more than all the previous presidents combined. COMBINED. And 'achieved" the statistic of having the 2nd highest unemployment rate of 10.8% in US history, with only the unemployment rate of 1931 being higher!!

So, you have three choices: Raise taxes (as Reagan did 11 times) or stop spending decreases, and allow the national debt to soar. And/or spend like crazy, and not worry at all about the national debt.

The Trump proposal is, according to the analysis so far, a really stupid idea. Simple plan for simple minds. But we should all wait to see what the CBO has to say. Not that they will be able to be perfectly accurate, but they will be honest and closer than most.

So, you have three choices: Raise taxes (as Reagan did 11 times)

That was awful! Raising the top rate from 70% all the way to 28%.

Just awful!

 

[protectionist]

So, you have three choices: Raise taxes (as Reagan did 11 times)

That was awful! Raising the top rate from 70% all the way to 28%.

Just awful!

You can cut waste & fraud (including illegal aliens) and stop th eloss of $123 Billion/year in remittances. with Americans in those jobs, that money becomes US sales and more sales taxes, more profits, more jobs, more tax revenue.

 

[protectionist]

Essential things that need to be criticized like....

Megyn Kelly's misogyny questions..............

John McCain having the temerity to get captured while Rump was home slacking in NY sex clubs....

The congential joint condition of a reporter who points out one of his many fabrications....

The size of his own hands (and rumpledforsekin).....

The owners of the Chicago Freaking Cubs.....

Megan Kelly had no misogyny. That was anti-Trump media hype.

John McCain was bombing people who never attacked us or did us any harm. Nothing heroic there.

Nuff said.

 

[protectionist]

I don't know but the cost of arrest, detention, prosecution, and deportation will be a hell of a lot more and that doesn't include a 11.8 billion dollar a year loss in taxes, the replacement of a million farm workers, nor the economic impact on local economies.

1. Mexico can (and should) be made to pay for the deporations.

2. Replacing illegal aliens with Americans INCREASES tax revenue & produces tax revenue GAINS (not losses)

3. Replacement of a million farm workers with unemployed AMERICANS.

4. Economic POSITIVE impact of the elimination of the loss of $123 Billion/year in remittances$$$ (ie, a GAIN of $123 Billion/year in sales in AMERICAN stores (AKA "the economy")

5. The elimination of the loss of tens of billions$$$ in welfare to illegals (via the anchor baby racket & false documentation)

6. The elimination of the loss of tens of Billions$$ more in crime costs.

 

[protectionist]

[Q
Not according to the Tax Center at the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Trump's plan is a looser. Even after taking into account economic expansion from lower rates, Congress would have to make huge spending cuts to make this plan workable.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/broo...nter.org/publications/urlprint.cfm?ID=2000560
An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan

There SHOULD (and would) be huge spending cuts. Duh!

 

[protectionist]

You are embarrassing yourself as you are taking a sound bite out of context.
Trump said that as long as we are involved in Trade Agreements with nations that manipulate their currencies and pay their workers dirt, almost ANY wage the US pays their workers is too high.
Damn, you are one dishonest Limousine Liberal.

Not surprising.