When Did Trump Make You A Keynesian?

[Skull Pilot]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

Not very many working men and women invest in stocks personally. They pay brokers whose self interest are their commissions, not necessarily the future of their clients.

That is an absurd statement. I suppose the grocery clerk also only cares about their paycheck and not your day or the quality of your service. What you say is incredibly pessimistic and not accurate at all.

Stock brokers indeed may a commission as they should. They are after all, providing a service for you. Besides, you don't need a broker to trade stocks.There are countless ways to trade stocks yourself without going through a middle man.

It would be more accurate for you to say that you don't trade stocks, and you think everyone is out to screw you over to make their buck and go home. Doesn't sound like the America I see every day. People make the most of their situation, work hard, and rise to new levels. America is the only place on earth where this is true- which is why America is the #1 country to emigrate into and has been for a long long time.

you don't have to trade stocks at all if you buy mutual funds

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump's $1.5 trillion debt bomb he called a "tax reform" was supposed to stimulate the economy. Remember how wages were going to explode?

The money "lost" from the tax cut isn't an expenditure and thus does nothing to the debt. The government is free to spend $1.5 Trillion less if so worried about it. They won't though. If they aren't willing to cut costs, why should we be willing to pay more?

It turns out all those corporations who received a big cash windfall from their tax cuts used that money to do stock buybacks instead of trickling it down to their workers.

Wrong. Trickle down economics is bullshit. Workers choose their employers, not the other way around. Nobody is forced to wait for that trickle. In an economy with low unemployment, workers have much more negotiating power too. Any job someone takes is a price they agreed to. If they don't think they're making enough, they should look for an employer who values them more.

First,

look up the actual tax cut demographics. Poor and Middle class getting biggest cuts. Rich paying slightly more in some cases and less in others. Look at the demographics saving the most. Even if what you said about wages falling were true ( it's not) , it would have to fall by quite a lot for the savings from the tax cuts to be a net loss for anybody except the ultra wealthy, who are already paying more .

Second,


Our employment rate is the best its been almost in modern history. Every non partisan projection floating around suggests, sometimes begrudgingly so due to Trump hate, that Trump's economy will get us below 3%. That is unheard of, and easily the best in the world outside of slave states like China. Even then, their true unemployment rate won't be so low.

This refutes your statement because a low unemployment such as this implies that workers now have the bargaining power in the economy. This means need for jobs exceeds supply. What do we all know, even the mathematically challenged socialists? That a low supply of workers will yield a higher demand (pay) by companies seeking to fill jobs. We're watching this happen in real time, and statements like yours are born out of misinformation and/or deceit.

All a middle class family cares about at the end of the day is how much money they're pulling in. If you look at the tax cuts for middle class brackets, you'll see that almost nobody is disliking the tax cuts. I find it hard to believe that anybody who works, today, is worse off than they were 2 years ago. Whether it be less tax out the door, more pay in their pocket, or their stocks going up, the take home wealth for just about everyone is going up toward historic levels.

Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.

Employees buy stock too. So do 401k'ers, factory workers , baby sitters, you name it. Anybody who buys stocks benefits from this.

Not very many working men and women invest in stocks personally. They pay brokers whose self interest are their commissions, not necessarily the future of their clients.

We do so w/o knowledge of it Wry, for ex, if you've a mortgage it may be invested in securitiy derivatives, if you've a retirement plan a hedge fund, etc. We live in a debt driven society that creates economic bubbles ,and blames the concept of socialism when it all <pops>

Methinks JM Keynes would be backpeddaling rather hard, if he saw what his macroeconomic laissez-faire 'free market' can assume>

if you've a mortgage it may be invested in securitiy derivatives,

If you think your mortgage is investing in anything, especially derivatives, you don't know the definition of mortgage.

I bet on last night's Cub's gave. That bet (derivative) had a notional value of $3.2 billion.
The actual bet was $5.

 

[danielpalos]

The hypocrisy is the vacuum of special pleading and the cognitive disconnect between revenue and spending.

Only the right wing believes they are not, connected.

What you just said is nothing but garbled garbage. It means nothing.

Spending == debt. End of story. No spending, no debt. You can have all the revenue you want, but still can have debt.

The government, no matter how much revenue they pull in, always finds a way to spend more. If you really care about debt, you are really wanting to shrink the government and force them to be accountable with their revenue.

Every single person, business, household has to balance their debt. The government is no different. They don't have a right to more money just like you don't have a right to more money. the only thing you can do to reduce your debt is to spend less than you make.

Why tax cut economics? It does nothing for spending.

I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe we have a language barrier idk.

Point being, if you don't spend money, you don't go into debt. Revenue is irrelevant. I can make zero dollars and still not be in debt. If debt is bad, then spending is the culprit, not revenue.

The fact that the US government can't balance its pocket book is a good reason to give them less money, not more.

Cognitive dissonance? Tax cut economics is Worthless, if it doesn't cover spending.

You can NEVER cover spending. Understand that. You will never see a government with a balanced budget for any extended period of time without serious reform.

All the left(and RINO's) do is say "more" . More this, more that. We're in debt because of that. There is no more money to take. You could take 100% of the wealth in America and still not be able to pay off our debt if counting unfunded liabilities.

This isn't my opinion. It's a fact. Every time the government raises it's budget, it gets exceeded. Rinse and repeat for years on end and you end up where we are. It has to stop. SPending has to get cut. If that means cutting out 2/3s of the alphabet agencies and every social program so be it. That's what the DoD and private charities are for.

If we abolished the IRS, and made the government beg and grovel for each cent it made, only then would it be fiscally responsible. So long as the government can put a gun to your head and rob you dry, it will never stop spending in excess. There is no accountability.

yet, the right wing is still for tax cut economics.

 

[Brain357]

Stocks are below where they were in January...

Which ones?

Most of them.

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which ones?

Most of them.

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

Your proof that "most stocks are down" is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks) is down?

 

[g5000]

You guys are saying we should give cash to an addict, and if we don't we are brainwashed and stupid. What happens when you give cash to an addict? Why are you advocating this?

Who are you talking about?

 

[Brain357]

Most of them.

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

Your proof that "most stocks are down" is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks) is down?

Not sure what world you are from, but most people here use the Dow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure if you're lying or ignorant.
I am sure that you're wrong.
Our stock market is higher now than it was in January.

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

Your proof that "most stocks are down" is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks) is down?

Not sure what world you are from, but most people here use the Dow.

When I say, "our stock market", the Russell 3000, the 3000 largest US stocks, about 98% of US market cap, is a much more comprehensive measure than the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 stocks.

If you prefer the S&P 500, it is also up since the January peak.

Or the Nasdaq.

Also up since January.

 

[Brain357]

It is below the highs of January....

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

Your proof that "most stocks are down" is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks) is down?

Not sure what world you are from, but most people here use the Dow.

When I say, "our stock market", the Russell 3000, the 3000 largest US stocks, about 98% of US market cap, is a much more comprehensive measure than the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 stocks.

If you prefer the S&P 500, it is also up since the January peak.

View attachment 218843

Or the Nasdaq.

View attachment 218844

Also up since January.

Yes that is really commonly referenced! Haha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're wrong.

January 26th it closed 26,616. Right now it is 26,508...

Your proof that "most stocks are down" is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (30 stocks) is down?

Not sure what world you are from, but most people here use the Dow.

When I say, "our stock market", the Russell 3000, the 3000 largest US stocks, about 98% of US market cap, is a much more comprehensive measure than the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 stocks.

If you prefer the S&P 500, it is also up since the January peak.

View attachment 218843

Or the Nasdaq.

View attachment 218844

Also up since January.

Yes that is really commonly referenced! Haha

I understand, amateurs only know the Dow.
That's okay.

 

[P@triot]

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

There is a glaring problem with your ignorance G-string. If you acknowledge that tax revenues increase with tax cuts (and they do), then why wouldn't you support tax cuts? If produces the same results for the federal government in terms of increased revenue, while also allowing companies to hire and expand their business and the American people keep more of what they earned, why wouldn't you support it? It's literally a rare real-world win-win. Because you're a radial ideologue and a partisan hack? Bingo!

By the way...your "epiphany" here was fully covered 40 years ago by Arthur Laffer and his Laffer Curve. Any idiot who understands basic economics understands there is a "sweet spot" for taxes. All that Republicans have done for the past 40 years is prove that that "sweet spot" is significantly lower than what idiot Dumbocrats set the tax rates at. You really are the laughing stock of USMB with your babbling.

 

[g5000]

The second fact is one which their propagandists deliberately keep from the rubes. This is a deliberate omission, and therefore a deliberately crafted lie. And that fact is that revenues have also increased after a tax INCREASE.

There is a glaring problem with your ignorance G-string. If you acknowledge that tax revenues increase with tax cuts (and they do), then why wouldn't you support tax cuts? If produces the same results for the federal government in terms of increased revenue, while also allowing companies to hire and expand their business and the American people keep more of what they earned, why wouldn't you support it? It's literally a rare real-world win-win. Because you're a radial ideologue and a partisan hack? Bingo!

By the way...your "epiphany" here was fully covered 40 years ago by Arthur Laffer and his Laffer Curve. Any idiot who understands basic economics understands there is a "sweet spot" for taxes. All that Republicans have done for the past 40 years is prove that that "sweet spot" is significantly lower than what idiot Dumbocrats set the tax rates at. You really are the laughing stock of USMB with your babbling.

My whole point, retard, is that tax rates are a shiny object to keep you tards misdirected from the real issue, which is that deficits climb no matter which party is in office. And in fact, deficits trend UPWARD when we have Republican Congresses and a Republican President.

The debt is the biggest threat to our national security.

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. After whining and whining and whining about Obama's debt for eight years, you tards have all gone dead silent, despite the fact deficits are exploding under Trump.

The gig is up. Your stench cannot be washed off.

 

[g5000]

When tax rates went up and revenues increased, not one tard started a topic crowing about increased revenues.

But, boy oh boy, did they whine a lot about Obama's debt during that time!

Now when revenues go up, they start topics to crow about it, but I have yet to see a single one of those tards utter so much as a peep about Trump's debt.

You're busted, tards. Wide open.

 

[P@triot]

My whole point, retard, is that tax rates are a shiny object to keep you tards misdirected from the real issue

You have no point. I just proved that by illustrating how you think you had this big break though when Arthur Laffer covered this more than 40 years ago.

Additionally, the real issue is spending (which is exclusively driven by Dumbocrats). You even proved that Republicans addressed the national debt by increasing revenue to the federal government with a sound tax plan (which also drastically increased the wealth of the entire nation).

 

[P@triot]

When tax rates went up and revenues increased, not one tard started a topic crowing about increased revenues.

Because it ultimately ends in reduced wealth for the nation, reduced employment, and thus, reduced tax revenues in the long wrong, dill-hole.

I'm not going to celebrate putting people out of work and companies out of business simply because you're a radical ideologue dill-hole.

 

[P@triot]

The debt is the biggest threat to our national security.

No. It's not. At all. Ignorant dill-hole. The national debt might be the biggest threat to the existence to the United States. But it sure as hell isn't the biggest threat to our National Security. The debt cannot rise up and over throw us. Idiot.

 

[g5000]

The debt is the biggest threat to our national security.

No. It's not. At all. Ignorant dill-hole. The national debt might be the biggest threat to the existence to the United States. But it sure as hell isn't the biggest threat to our National Security. The debt cannot rise up and over throw us. Idiot.

Wow. Did you really just say this or am I hallucinating?

Holy shit, you get dumber by the minute!

 

[P@triot]

Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. After whining and whining and whining about Obama's debt for eight years, you tards have all gone dead silent, despite the fact deficits are exploding under Trump.

But your ignorance stinks to low hell. The lowest of hell. It's an awful stench that causes each of us to literally physically gag when reading your uneducated drivel.

MaObama added more to the debt in his first 4 years than all U.S. presidents in U.S. history combined did in their first term. President Trump isn't even in the ball park when it comes to MaObama debt. Hell, he actually paid OFF billions of the national debt early on. Idiot.

 

[P@triot]

The debt is the biggest threat to our national security.

No. It's not. At all. Ignorant dill-hole. The national debt might be the biggest threat to the existence to the United States. But it sure as hell isn't the biggest threat to our National Security. The debt cannot rise up and over throw us. Idiot.

Wow. Did you really just say this or am I hallucinating? Holy shit, you get dumber by the minute!

Which is why you literally have no response other than "you're dumb". Every time I prove an idiot progressive wrong, they just scream "your dumb" and run away.

 

[g5000]

The pseudocon tards have forever negated any whines they ever made about Obama's debt. They have proven in this topic they are raging hypocrites, and yet another moral benchmark has imploded.

Here is what the conservative Heritage Foundation was saying about the national debt being a threat to our security when Obama was running up debt:


Heritage Foundation: The Many Real Dangers of Soaring National Debt

Recent and projected growth in U.S. government debt poses a serious hazard to the nation. At a minimum, high levels of government debt mean substantial government resources must go toward servicing debt—to pay interest. Further, theory indicates and a growing body of research suggests a consistent relationship between high levels of government debt relative to the size of the economy and abnormally high interest rates consistent with lower levels of domestic investment.



Heritage Foundation: High Debt Is a Real Drag

Three teams of economists have separately shown that high government debt has a negative effect on long-term economic growth. When government debt grows, private investment shrinks, lowering future growth and future wages.

Estimates across advanced economies show that debt drag reaches large and statistically significant levels as debt grows, with the worst effects occurring after debt reaches 90 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With U.S. federal, state, and local government debt at 84 percent of GDP and rising, policymakers should begin taking debt drag into account when considering new deficit spending.


Reminder: US deficits by year:

FY 2009 $1.4 trillion
FY 2010 $1.3 trillion
FY 2011 $1.3 trillion
FY 2012 $1 trillion
FY 2013 $679 billion
FY 2014 $485 billion
FY 2015 $438 billion
FY 2016 $585 billion
FY 2017 $665 billion
FY 2018 $833 billion (est)
FY 2019 $984 billion (est)