|
Replies: 25
| visibility 856
|
Heisman Winner [111319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73653
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
What's the problem?
Jul 15, 2017, 12:49 PM
|
|
He's only off by $3 Trillion or so?
Geez, what a nitpicker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17226]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14187
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Not an economist - but wonder if the large size of the US ..
Jul 15, 2017, 1:03 PM
|
|
economy make larger percentage growth in GDP less likely - especially with the population growth trend between .8 % and .75%. which could drop with restrictions on international migration. Also median age and median age of labor force are steady or slightly rising.
Without inflation, not sure what will drive the higher rates of tax revenue. For those retired or may retire in the next few years, inflation is a concern. Growth solves many financial ills in business and government just unsure how much it can be counted on.
And then there is the "deficit" we will be leaving our grandchildren. It seems that Trump's economics are a big bet on growth that if lost leaves the next generations to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13359]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9885
Joined: 1/23/06
|
I thought the president decided if the CBO matters or not.
Jul 15, 2017, 1:48 PM
|
|
According to Obama- they were "way way off" and their assessments should be dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73653
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2702]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1452
Joined: 1/20/12
|
3% growth is a pipe dream
Jul 15, 2017, 7:48 PM
|
|
I recently heard a conversation on NPR about economic growth, so my opinion is based mostly off of this scholar's research.
Growth in the simplest of terms is output greater than a previous space of time. So 3% growth in the GDP is the collective economy putting out some serious heat.
Everybody is familiar with Japan's downward spiral in their economy despite insane growth in the 80s. Why has this happened? The working class is aging into retirement faster than workers can be replaced.
This economist's model says that even at 0% unemployment we cannot expect 3% growth over the next 10 years because of a shrinking work force. It would take hundreds of thousands of immigrants to fill these jobs to get up to 3% and as we well know the president and his ilk don't like immigrants taking jobs from Americans.
The only other way to get sustained 3% growth is to invent the next wheel. It will take something like a new internet or printing press to create enough wealth to get to 3%. That's just a wish, not a plan.
So, DJT's plan is already lost. That is, unless everybody decides coal is the new oil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Liberal economic ignorance is just stunning.
Jul 15, 2017, 10:39 PM
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/17/opinion/the-reagan-boom-greatest-ever.html
We don't know whether historians will call it the Great Expansion of the 1980's or Reagan's Great Expansion, but we do know from official economic statistics that the seven year period from 1982 to 1989 was the greatest, consistent burst of economic activity ever seen in the U.S. In fact, it was the greatest economic expansion the world has ever seen - in any country, at any time.
Never before had so many jobs been created during a comparable time period. The new jobs covered the entire spectrum of work, and more than half of them paid more than $20,000 a year.
The amount of wealth produced during this seven year period was stupendous - some $30 trillion worth of goods and services. Again, it was a world record. Never before had so much wealth been produced during a comparable period.
Steady economic growth. As we begin the decade of the 1990's, we are in our 86th straight month of economic growth - a new record for peacetime... Most experts now predict that it will last right through 1990, and perhaps beyond.
Under President Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered dramatically, from 70 percent to 28 percent. This policy change was the prime force behind the record breaking economic expansion.
There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars.
The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73653
Joined: 9/10/03
|
are you an economist
Jul 15, 2017, 10:51 PM
|
|
and are you really trying to compare economic conditions from 30-40 years ago to our current situation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Have they repealed the laws of supply and demand?***
Jul 17, 2017, 8:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73653
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Have they repealed the laws of supply and demand?***
Jul 18, 2017, 5:34 AM
|
|
gee IDK Cdef, something about more foreign competition driving down wages, gutting our manufacturing base over the last 5 decades, baby boomers retiring, and the amount of money we spend paying interest on 20 trillion in debt. Did you even read the article I posted, or do you really believe trump has some magical formula that can sustain 3% growth despite what every single qualified economist is saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7183]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9391
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [59974]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22468
Joined: 5/24/17
|
Re: Lol. Reagan would be proud
Jul 16, 2017, 11:11 PM
|
|
You asserting that Reagan wasn't a friend to the USSR and Gorbachev? Really? You think he was an "enemy" to the Russian government and that is the way he won?
He wanted to see change. He wanted the people to be free. He didn't look at them as the enemy, he looked at Russia as an opportunity. I see Trump doing the same.
Its interesting how the Liberals have become war hawks all the sudden, especially prior to the election. Its almost comical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34094]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33598
Joined: 9/13/99
|
It's not like he called then an "evil empire" or anything.***
Jul 17, 2017, 8:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [490]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/28/04
|
Re: Lol. Reagan would be proud
Jul 17, 2017, 8:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: Lol. Reagan would be proud ] |
|
Just b/c we don't think that DJT should have borrowed campaign money from the Russians (it is highly illegal), does not mean we are war hawks.
I wl always trust John McCain's opinion way more than I would trust stupid Trump's opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111319]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73653
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Lol. Reagan would be proud
Jul 18, 2017, 5:41 AM
[ in reply to Re: Lol. Reagan would be proud ] |
|
thank god people are free in Russia now. I am shocked there are not more Reagan moments in Moscow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31278
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The benefits of deficit spending and ballooning government
Jul 16, 2017, 12:11 PM
[ in reply to Liberal economic ignorance is just stunning. ] |
|
employment. Under Reagan, the national debt tripled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988. $1.8 Trillion in deficit spending under Reagan included a federal workforce increase of about 324,000 to almost 5.3 million people.
Now contrast that to 2012 under Obama, when the federal government employed almost a million fewer people than it did in the last year of Reagan’s presidency. And all of that with 82 million fewer people in the country during the Reagan years.
Keep in mind that the Reagan tax cuts were followed by massive tax increases on labor in the years following as the deficit exploded from the tax cuts without accompanying spending reductions. Basically, what we got was a massive shift of wealth from the working class Americans to the wealthiest Americans.
There is a constant effort on the part of Republicans to re-imagine what actually happened under Reagan that facts just don't support. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
You are conflating economic growth with
Jul 17, 2017, 8:31 AM
|
|
political pig trough spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [490]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/28/04
|
Re: Liberal economic ignorance is just stunning.
Jul 16, 2017, 10:38 PM
[ in reply to Liberal economic ignorance is just stunning. ] |
|
The Reagan years were not great economic times. The "trickle-down effect" didn't trickle. The rich got richer, due to the massive taxcuts for the rich, but they spent their Reagan money on Jaguars, Persian rugs, fine Italian clothes, boats, and cars. Very little was spent to stimulate the economy for American jobs.
Bill Clinton was elected because Bush, Sr., didn't understand that his economy was sinking off the Reagan "non-trickle."
When Bill Clinton left office, the economy was roaring, despite starting in Bush, Sr.'s recession.
It took W a couple of years to blow the budget by starting a false and expensive war and also giving a taxcut to the rich.
W's administration also reduced banking regs, that ultimately led to his 2008 great recession. Good think Obama was able to bail W out -- still, history will record W as one of the wost US presidents, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
There is no such thing as trickle down economics. That is a
Jul 17, 2017, 8:33 AM
|
|
political pejorative term dreamed up by the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [490]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/28/04
|
Re: There is no such thing as trickle down economics. That is a
Jul 17, 2017, 8:20 PM
|
|
Go back and look it up. All of the Republicans in the Reagan were pushing taxcuts for the rich that would "trickle-down" in the form of jobs for the lower classes. Just didn't happen, as the rich spent most of the money on foreign-made luxuries or saved the money. Yep, the stock mkt went up, but very few jobs were created from those taxcuts. To a large extent, the states had to raise taxes b/c Reagan's gov't dropped services that the states had to pick-up. (Uh-oh, if DJT gets his way, that's about to happen again.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34094]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33598
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
False.
Jul 18, 2017, 8:43 AM
|
|
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/#756679be5891
Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is “trickle-down economics.”
It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry.
Sneering that Reagan’s policies amounted to cutting taxes on the rich in hopes that some small amount of that money would eventually trickle down into the pockets of workers was perfect. It painted Reagan and other advocates of tax reduction as friends of the rich who would cruelly deprive the government of the money it needed to help the poor and middle class.
As a political slogan, it was a brilliant stroke.
The trouble is that it has led vast numbers of people into a disastrously mistaken idea about the source of prosperity – that high taxes and a growing government is the way to increase it.
In a free society, wealth doesn’t trickle down, or up, or sideways.
It is earned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34094]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33598
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Will Rogers in 1932, talking about Republicans
Jul 18, 2017, 8:45 AM
|
|
They didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34094]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33598
Joined: 9/13/99
|
David Stockman, Reagan's budget director
Jul 18, 2017, 8:50 AM
|
|
Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" he explained, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/?single_page=true
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3590]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 6987
Joined: 11/30/12
|
Show me the academic discipline of trickle down economics.***
Jul 18, 2017, 9:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34094]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33598
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Republican doctrines are rarely tied to academic disciplines***
Jul 18, 2017, 9:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 25
| visibility 856
|
|
|
50
