The Trump Economy

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[BeginnersMind]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

 

We are revisiting some bad deals and as Tom said above, it sure would be nice if they can get these ratified. 

 

Hopefully our less diplomatic negotiating bully-style doesn't bite us in some future agreement. 

 

The big deal will be the China one. When that deal comes, and it will, it will have a major impact. These other deals are chump change by comparison. 

 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

We are revisiting some bad deals and as Tom said above, it sure would be nice if they can get these ratified. 

 

Hopefully our less diplomatic negotiating bully-style doesn't bite us in some future agreement. 

 

The big deal will be the China one. When that deal comes, and it will, it will have a major impact. These other deals are chump change by comparison. 

 

So, NAFTA was a bad deal and we are revisiting it and have come to preliminary agreement on better deals. The EU has supposedly folded on their ridiculous auto tariffs. I guess all that diplomatic negotiating over the years was the proper way to go about it? Trump made promises and then went about fulfilling them by wielding the natural power, that as a nation, we possess. We didn't need milquetoast diplomacy obviously, but some straight talk with our trading partners. China of course will be important, but they've already found out that their threats regarding tariffs on soybeans couldn't stand the test of reality. The trade deals Trump is striking would seem to be a reason for celebration not yes,but leftist excuses.

[BeginnersMind]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, NAFTA was a bad deal and we are revisiting it and have come to preliminary agreement on better deals. The EU has supposedly folded on their ridiculous auto tariffs. I guess all that diplomatic negotiating over the years was the proper way to go about it? Trump made promises and then went about fulfilling them by wielding the natural power, that as a nation, we possess. We didn't need milquetoast diplomacy obviously, but some straight talk with our trading partners. China of course will be important, but they've already found out that their threats regarding tariffs on soybeans couldn't stand the test of reality. The trade deals Trump is striking would seem to be a reason for celebration not yes,but leftist excuses.

 

Trump is doing much better than others getting the US improved trade deals. But tearing up one deal and demanding a new one sets a tough precedent for the future moment when someone does it to us. 

 

I am also watching other agreements that matter outside economic, and I wonder whether we will see a spirit of continued cooperation.

 

I am optimistic that we can overcome the lack of diplomacy and tearing up deals, but it's something to watch. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Trump is doing much better than others getting the US improved trade deals. But tearing up one deal and demanding a new one sets a tough precedent for the future moment when someone does it to us.

 

Just can't ever give the man unequivocal praise. He's winning both internationally and domestically, and because you don't like his STYLE, you're a hater.

 

Substance is what matters.

 

[BeginnersMind]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Just can't ever give the man unequivocal praise.

 

 

 

True. He's done some good things for sure--I would not deny it. Kavanaugh is a good pick as well. 

 

But that doesn't mean he's not worthy of critique in other areas. 

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Trump is doing much better than others getting the US improved trade deals. But tearing up one deal and demanding a new one sets a tough precedent for the future moment when someone does it to us. 

 

I am also watching other agreements that matter outside economic, and I wonder whether we will see a spirit of continued cooperation.

 

I am optimistic that we can overcome the lack of diplomacy and tearing up deals, but it's something to watch. 

Who is going to do it to us? You have to understand that when you are in a position of power you dictate the terms. China said they were going to put tariffs on our soybeans and had the liberal media in a tizzy. A few days later they backed off because...……………………...they couldn't get enough elsewhere. As far as other deals which I assume you mean military alliances, who the !@#$ is going to replace us?

[BeginnersMind]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Who is going to do it to us? You have to understand that when you are in a position of power you dictate the terms. China said they were going to put tariffs on our soybeans and had the liberal media in a tizzy. A few days later they backed off because...……………………...they couldn't get enough elsewhere. As far as other deals which I assume you mean military alliances, who the !@#$ is going to replace us?

 

We are the big guy so we can tear up the deals we signed that are already in place. I get that. 

 

It's about more than style, but it certainly will get us better deals now.

 

[B-Man]

[Koko78]

7 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

Trump is doing much better than others getting the US improved trade deals. But tearing up one deal and demanding a new one sets a tough precedent for the future moment when someone does it to us.

 

Two things:

 

1.) We are not going to be replaced as the top dog anytime in the near future. We always have the leverage to tell the other nation to piss off, with the other nation feeling as much, if not far more, pain than we feel from walking away.

 

2.) Other nations aren't likely going to play the !@#$ you game with us in the future, if we strike deals that are fair for both sides.

 

Trump isn't wrong that we have been taking the **** end of trade deals for decades, and that the other countries damn well know it.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Koko78

[LaDexter]

Trump wanted spending cuts.  Ryan and McConnell denied him those.  Until we get those, this isn't really "his" as much as it should be.  Hopefully the next Congress with a new Speaker will actually take care of the disaster that is Uncle Sam's balance sheet.

[B-Man]

CHANGE: Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers.

 

“We must maintain efforts to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” the president wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

 

Under Trump’s policy, roughly 1.8 million people wouldn’t get an automatic pay boost next year, including Border Patrol and ICE agents.

 

That stance puts vulnerable GOP lawmakers representing northern Virginia — home to tens of thousands of federal workers — in the political crosshairs. And it sets up an all-but-certain funding fight with Congress next month, as party leaders attempt to reach a sweeping agreement to keep the government open before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1.

 

The deal used to be that Federal workers traded high pay for virtually guaranteed job security. Now they get better pay than almost anyone else, automatic pay raises most years, and they’re not only virtually un-fireable, but can’t or won’t be held to account even for criminal activity. And at least at the top echelons, have developed an attitude problem to go with their perceived invincibility.

 

All this has led to well-deserved outrage out here in flyover country, which as best as I can recall has a lot more seats than even northern Virginia.

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

CHANGE: Trump cancels pay raises for almost 2 million federal workers.

 

“We must maintain efforts to put our nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases,” the president wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

 

Under Trump’s policy, roughly 1.8 million people wouldn’t get an automatic pay boost next year, including Border Patrol and ICE agents.

 

That stance puts vulnerable GOP lawmakers representing northern Virginia — home to tens of thousands of federal workers — in the political crosshairs. And it sets up an all-but-certain funding fight with Congress next month, as party leaders attempt to reach a sweeping agreement to keep the government open before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1.

 

The deal used to be that Federal workers traded high pay for virtually guaranteed job security. Now they get better pay than almost anyone else, automatic pay raises most years, and they’re not only virtually un-fireable, but can’t or won’t be held to account even for criminal activity. And at least at the top echelons, have developed an attitude problem to go with their perceived invincibility.

 

All this has led to well-deserved outrage out here in flyover country, which as best as I can recall has a lot more seats than even northern Virginia.

 

 

 

.

 

And don’t forget guaranteed lifetime income and benefits upon retiring that private sector employees stopped getting a few decades ago 

[Tiberius]

Trump's nafta remake has a $16 minimum wage! 

 

Search Results

Web results

U.S., Mexico reach NAFTA deal, turn up pressure on Canada | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/...nafta/u-s-mexico-reach-nafta-deal-pressure-turns-to-canada...

1.  

4 days ago - U.S., Mexico reach NAFTA deal, turn up pressure on Canada ... 45 percent of auto content to be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.

 

 

Where is all the right wing outrage? No where, that's where! 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Trump's nafta remake has a $16 minimum wage! 

 

Search Results

Web results

U.S., Mexico reach NAFTA deal, turn up pressure on Canada | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/...nafta/u-s-mexico-reach-nafta-deal-pressure-turns-to-canada...

1.  

4 days ago - U.S., Mexico reach NAFTA deal, turn up pressure on Canada ... 45 percent of auto content to be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.

 

 

Where is all the right wing outrage? No where, that's where! 

Yah, that's a big increase for auto workers, you moron. Do you have any clue what the purpose is?

[B-Man]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yah, that's a big increase for auto workers, you moron. Do you have any clue what the purpose is?

 

yeah, not quite the same as a "minimum wage for all" 

 

Hey ask him if 1 is the same as ten ?

 

 

 

.

Edited August 31, 2018 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

yeah, not quite the same as a "minimum wage for all" 

 

Hey ask him if 1 is the same as ten ?

 

 

 

.

I've already proven it. He's still trying to figure out why there aren't 48 weeks to a year.

[Buffalo_Gal]

USTR Statement on Trade Negotiations with Mexico and Canada

Washington, DC – U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer today issued the following statement regarding the status of trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada:
 

“Today the President notified the Congress of his intent to sign a trade agreement with Mexico – and Canada, if it is willing – 90 days from now.  The agreement is the most advanced and high-standard trade agreement in the world.  Over the next few weeks, Congress and cleared advisors from civil society and the private sector will be able to examine the agreement.  They will find it has huge benefits for our workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.

[Tiberius]

So Trump is getting his rich buddies more money by indexing capital gains to inflation, thus reducing the tax owed, at the same time killing a 1.9% increase for federal workers, claiming the need to keep nations finances in order. This is how they think. 

[B-Man]

Labor Day Sees Americans Grilling More Steaks on Strong Economy...    M.A.G.A.     .

[/dev/null]

56 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Labor Day Sees Americans Grilling More Steaks on Strong Economy...    M.A.G.A.     .

Make America Grill Again

[B-Man]

August job creation rebounds — “fueled by tax cuts,” notes AP, Bloomberg

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 6.3%: African-American Unemployment Rate Second-Lowest Ever.

 

 

Worst. . . . . . Racist. . . . . .Ever.

 

 

.

 

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

August job creation rebounds — “fueled by tax cuts,” notes AP, Bloomberg

 

 

 

.

The economy is doing great, fueled in large part by deficit creating tax cuts. Problem is that fuel runs out at some point , and then we will be left with just a big giant deficit and a whole lot of richer rich people. 

 

 

 

I do have a question, not sure if this is the right place for it not. Trump created this tax plan to obviously kill middle to upper middle class folks who live in states that do not vote for him, and never will. 

 

Has there been been any analysis done that shows what a person in Jersey , like @joesixpackwill be paying in taxes come April 2019 vs what they paid in April 2018 say at  $100k income?  How bout at @ $150K. 

 

Am I kinda stuck today and only on phone, but will try to see if I can find that out as well. 

[GG]

9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The economy is doing great, fueled in large part by deficit creating tax cuts. Problem is that fuel runs out at some point , and then we will be left with just a big giant deficit and a whole lot of richer rich people. 

 

 

 

I do have a question, not sure if this is the right place for it not. Trump created this tax plan to obviously kill middle to upper middle class folks who live in states that do not vote for him, and never will. 

 

Has there been been any analysis done that shows what a person in Jersey , like @joesixpackwill be paying in taxes come April 2019 vs what they paid in April 2018 say at  $100k income?  How bout at @ $150K. 

 

Am I kinda stuck today and only on phone, but will try to see if I can find that out as well. 

 

 That's a hard one to answer unless you provide the total state tax deductions.  Plus, the higher you go in the income scale, state tax deductions don't matter because they go away with the AMT calculation anyway.

 

The other goal for eliminating deductions that are big in the blue states, is to highlight the local and state taxes which were somewhat masked by the fed deduction. 

[plenzmd1]

17 minutes ago, GG said:

 

 That's a hard one to answer unless you provide the total state tax deductions.  Plus, the higher you go in the income scale, state tax deductions don't matter because they go away with the AMT calculation anyway.

 

The other goal for eliminating deductions that are big in the blue states, is to highlight the local and state taxes which were somewhat masked by the fed deduction. 

I thought the AMT went away? I am hoping so, cause we crushed by that sucker!!! I truly don't know the answers to these.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

40 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The economy is doing great, fueled in large part by deficit creating tax cuts. Problem is that fuel runs out at some point , and then we will be left with just a big giant deficit and a whole lot of richer rich people. 

 

 

 

I do have a question, not sure if this is the right place for it not. Trump created this tax plan to obviously kill middle to upper middle class folks who live in states that do not vote for him, and never will. 

 

Has there been been any analysis done that shows what a person in Jersey , like @joesixpackwill be paying in taxes come April 2019 vs what they paid in April 2018 say at  $100k income?  How bout at @ $150K. 

 

Am I kinda stuck today and only on phone, but will try to see if I can find that out as well. 

NYS taxpayer and at a $10K SALT deduction,  Hubby and I are going to be paying more. A lot more.  We itemize and pay with a big-fat quarterly check now. It is going to be worse (we did prepay some before April 15th, but October 15th and getting our 2017 taxes is coming quick... I will not know the exact impact until October 2019... because we have never, ever filed by April 15th in all the years we've been married. We pay on time, but we file an extension.)

Does that mean I think the tax cuts are a bad thing? Not at all. At some point, my hope is the chuckleheads in Albany will get the message. I'm not convinced, but there is no way I am moving to Florida, so, hope springs eternal.

After NYS income taxes, our next largest tax in this specific state (federal is our largest tax) is the school tax. That alone is the $10K we can deduct. So, what happens on the next vote for a tax-raise for school taxes? Right now, we are one of the lower rates/1000 , but it is still a decent chunk of change. I think it may take two to three votes before the people in my district figure it out (or decided they do not care).

As to the "deficit" created by tax cuts, at this point it is not true.  (I've posted this before)
 

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

For the fiscal year as a whole — which started last October — all federal revenues are up by $31 billion. That's a 1.2%  increase over last year, the CBO says.

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal

[GG]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I thought the AMT went away? I am hoping so, cause we crushed by that sucker!!! I truly don't know the answers to these.

 

 

Individual AMT is still in the law, but the deduction levels changed.    Essentially if you're making less than $200k you shouldn't be affected by AMT

[TH3]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

August job creation rebounds — “fueled by deficit exploding  tax cuts,” notes AP, Bloomberg

 

 

 

.

 

FITY.....Gee - what recent time period can we look to when the US had gone from a period of solid but unspectacular growth to highly leveraged public and private spending leading to a huge crash....

[plenzmd1]

35 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

NYS taxpayer and at a $10K SALT deduction,  Hubby and I are going to be paying more. A lot more.  We itemize and pay with a big-fat quarterly check now. It is going to be worse (we did prepay some before April 15th, but October 15th and getting our 2017 taxes is coming quick... I will not know the exact impact until October 2019... because we have never, ever filed by April 15th in all the years we've been married. We pay on time, but we file an extension.)

Does that mean I think the tax cuts are a bad thing? Not at all. At some point, my hope is the chuckleheads in Albany will get the message. I'm not convinced, but there is no way I am moving to Florida, so, hope springs eternal.

After NYS income taxes, our next largest tax in this specific state (federal is our largest tax) is the school tax. That alone is the $10K we can deduct. So, what happens on the next vote for a tax-raise for school taxes? Right now, we are one of the lower rates/1000 , but it is still a decent chunk of change. I think it may take two to three votes before the people in my district figure it out (or decided they do not care).

As to the "deficit" created by tax cuts, at this point it is not true.  (I've posted this before)
 

The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.

For the fiscal year as a whole — which started last October — all federal revenues are up by $31 billion. That's a 1.2%  increase over last year, the CBO says.

 

Thank you..great example and exactly what I was looking for.

 

In terms of the italicized last paragraph, that's great to see...did expenditures rise at a higher level  than revenue rose?

[TH3]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Thank you..great example and exactly what I was looking for.

 

In terms of the italicized last paragraph, that's great to see...did expenditures rise at a higher level  than revenue rose?

Great to see?

 

Think about it....Federal Revenues are up 1.2 percent....in an economy that is growing at 3 percent....

 

Gotta pay for stuff...

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, baskin said:

Great to see?

 

Think about it....Federal Revenues are up 1.2 percent....in an economy that is growing at 3 percent....

 

Gotta pay for stuff...

depends how you look at it. I believe in smaller government, and believe people should keep more of what they make..even corporations.

 

The question I have ... is  the entire spectrum of taxpayers paying less at same rate.....and are expenditures growing at a smaller rate than revenues...if so i don't even care if revenues go down in an economy that is growing at 4%..as long as expenditures are going down by equal or greater amounts. Any delta there and we can start to attack this deficit, which is my number one fear when it comes to the economy.

[Buffalo_Gal]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

depends how you look at it. I believe in smaller government, and believe people should keep more of what they make..even corporations.

 

The question I have ... is  the entire spectrum of taxpayers paying less at same rate.....and are expenditures growing at a smaller rate than revenues...if so i don't even care if revenues go down in an economy that is growing at 4%..as long as expenditures are going down by equal or greater amounts. Any delta there and we can start to attack this deficit, which is my number one fear when it comes to the economy.

Now remembering that the House is the purse, this pie chart may help with spending outlays.  It looks like Pensions + Obamacare = horrible money problems. They have 2018 projections, but of course, that is not set in stone yet (could end up better, could end up worse).

[GG]

49 minutes ago, baskin said:

Great to see?

 

Think about it....Federal Revenues are up 1.2 percent....in an economy that is growing at 3 percent....

 

Gotta pay for stuff...

 

Wait a second, have you already abandoned the talking point that fed revenues fall when taxes are cut?

[DC Tom]

Just now, GG said:

 

Wait a second, have you already abandoned the talking point that fed revenues fall when taxes are cut?

 

But they didn't increase as much as they would have without the tax cuts, which is falling*, so...double dumbass pork chop on you! [/PPP liberals]

 

 

(*for an explanation of how "rising less quickly" is "falling," see "Care Act, Affordable")

[Buffalo_Gal]

That is an interesting title on CNBC. No idea how long it will be up before it is changed.

Trump has set economic growth on fire. Here is how he did it

The bullet points right after the title are "sure he is doing  X, but here is why it will fail in the long term" from the dimwits who said it couldn't happen at all.  
 

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.
 

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

That is an interesting title on CNBC. No idea how long it will be up before it is changed.

Trump has set economic growth on fire. Here is how he did it

The bullet points right after the title are "sure he is doing  X, but here is why it will fail in the long term" from the dimwits who said it couldn't happen at all.  
 

During his time in office, the economy has achieved feats most experts thought impossible. GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.
 

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009.

 

I think they miss what might be the biggest factor: regulatory uncertainty was a factor during the Obama administration that kept a lot of corporate capital dormant and was thus a significant brake on growth.  The election of Trump - even before he did anything - greatly reduced or eliminated that uncertainty, which freed up corporate cash reserves that were probably on the order of a trillion dollars to be put towards capital improvements.

[KRC]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I think they miss what might be the biggest factor: regulatory uncertainty was a factor during the Obama administration that kept a lot of corporate capital dormant and was thus a significant brake on growth.  The election of Trump - even before he did anything - greatly reduced or eliminated that uncertainty, which freed up corporate cash reserves that were probably on the order of a trillion dollars to be put towards capital improvements.

 

Combine that with the changes to depreciation regulations, and that added to the incentive to use money towards CapEx (albeit after Trump did something).

[GG]

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I think they miss what might be the biggest factor: regulatory uncertainty was a factor during the Obama administration that kept a lot of corporate capital dormant and was thus a significant brake on growth.  The election of Trump - even before he did anything - greatly reduced or eliminated that uncertainty, which freed up corporate cash reserves that were probably on the order of a trillion dollars to be put towards capital improvements.

 

Which was always the drag on real growth in the preceding 8 years

[IDBillzFan]

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I think they miss what might be the biggest factor: regulatory uncertainty was a factor during the Obama administration that kept a lot of corporate capital dormant and was thus a significant brake on growth.  The election of Trump - even before he did anything - greatly reduced or eliminated that uncertainty, which freed up corporate cash reserves that were probably on the order of a trillion dollars to be put towards capital improvements.

 

Interesting, because today Obama decided he didn't want to be ignored any more, so he gave a speech explaining that he is responsible for the recovery.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by LABillzFan