Trump

[AquaMan]

Yeah, well....you're pretty guilty of that yourself mr Alf. Cherry picking what you want to respond to in these posts is pretty popular.

[swake]

I know experts are never EVER wrong. Except when they are and the "little people" get hurt.

The company has no cred. They rated junk bonds as AAA for years, with warnings. They never read anything. They got paid. And never went to prison for fraud too by the way.

This guy in particularly is saying Clinton's plan will be a good thing for the economy based on Immigration and Minimum Wage? Is he using the same formula's that created the hockey stick global warming chart?

It's not just Moody's

Nobel prize winning Economist Paul Krugman:

So Donald Trump has unveiled his tax plan. It would, it turns out, lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit.
This is in contrast to Jeb Bush's plan, which would lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit, and Marco Rubio's plan, which would lavish huge cuts on the wealthy while blowing up the deficit.
For what it's worth, it looks as if Trump's plan would make an even bigger hole in the budget than Jeb's. Jeb justifies his plan by claiming that it would double America's rate of growth; The Donald, ahem, trumps this by claiming that he would triple the rate of growth. But really, why sweat the details? It's all voodoo. The interesting question is why every Republican candidate feels compelled to go down this path.
You might think that there was a defensible economic case for the obsession with cutting taxes on the rich. That is, you might think that if you'd spent the past 20 years in a cave (or a conservative think tank). Otherwise, you'd be aware that tax-cut enthusiasts have a remarkable track record: They've been wrong about everything, year after year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/opinion/voodoo-never-dies.html?_r=0

The Brookings Institution:
Trump's tax plan will make America's debt great again

Donald Trump has put forth some really novel (and poor) ideas – his immigration and trade policies come to mind.  His tax reform ideas are misguided, too, but they are not novel.  They share essential elements with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, as well as with Mitt Romney's plan in 2012 and Paul Ryan's, more recently.
His plan would drain government coffers of revenues.  Coupled with his promise to avoid cuts to Social Security and Medicare – two big parts of the budget – it would boost public debt to all-time record levels.
Trump's plan would provide massive tax cuts for the richest Americans and undercut every progressive feature of the tax code. It would slash top income tax rates, eliminate the estate tax – which only a tiny fraction of the population pays – and cut corporate and business tax rates by more than half.  The plan would encourage massive amounts of tax avoidance by setting the top business tax rate at 15 percent and the top rate on wages at 33 percent.
The plan aims to encourage firms to create new jobs in the United States by offering a 10 percent tax rate on the repatriation of funds that are currently parked overseas.  But we tried a similar policy in the Bush (43) Administration and it had no effect on jobs or investments.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/08/10/making-americas-debt-great-again/

The Tax Foundation:

• Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's tax plan would significantly reduce income taxes and corporate taxes, and eliminate the estate tax.
• According to the Tax Foundation's Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision.
• The plan would also significantly reduce marginal rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to higher long-run levels of GDP, wages, and full-time equivalent jobs.
• After accounting for the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenues by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion after accounting for the larger economy, depending on the nature of a key policy provision.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-tax-reform-plan-september-2016

CNN Money:

Donald Trump has claimed his tax plan will cut taxes for working- and middle-class Americans.
And independent reports have shown that under Trump's proposals, all income groups would see a tax cut on average.
But "average" doesn't mean everyone.
A new analysis estimates that Trump's tax plan could actually raise the tax burden on millions of low- and middle-income families.

The analysis was done by Lily Batchelder, who formerly served as deputy director of President Obama's National Economic Council and Majority chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee under former Sen. Max Baucus.
And the conservative Tax Foundation said it replicated many of Batchelder's numbers and found her conclusions to be "reasonable."
Batchelder estimates that roughly 20% of households with minor children and more than half of single parents could end up paying more in taxes than they do today. These groups include about 25 million adults and 15 million children.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/26/news/economy/trump-tax-plan/

CNBC:

Donald Trump's new tax plan gives the top 1 percent an average cut of at least $122,400, while the middle class could get a break of less than $500, according to a new analysis.

The independent Tax Foundation said Monday that the Republican presidential candidate's plan, announced last week, would cut taxes for every income group. Yet the biggest reductions would go to the biggest earners.

According to the plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a 10.2 percent to 16 percent boost in their after-tax incomes from the plan, assuming a steady economy. The middle class, or those in the 40 percent to 60 percent quintile, would only see a 1.3 percent increase.

Using $1.2 million as the average income for the top 1 percent, members of this group would get an average tax cut between $122,400 and $192,000, according to the Tax Foundation. The middle-quintile taxpayers, who earn an average $38,000, would get a $494 break.

The tax cut for the 1 percent would be even larger using the Trump campaign's assumptions about economic growth under the plan. Using so-called dynamic scoring, which assumes a larger economy and broader tax base, the top 1 percent would get a tax cut between 12.2 percent and 19.9 percent. That works out to savings between $146,400 and $238,800.

[erfalf]

Yeah, well....you're pretty guilty of that yourself mr Alf. Cherry picking what you want to respond to in these posts is pretty popular.

Careful there pot.

I just asked a question. I wasn't making a judgement.

[erfalf]

Swake, none of what you just posted actually addresses the broader economy, only individual's pocket books. Not to say that is not important, just that you are comparing apples to oranges.

[AquaMan]

Careful there pot.

I just asked a question. I wasn't making a judgement.

Nor did I excuse myself. Sure looked like a judgement to me. Some are more addicted to that behavior than others Kettle.

When people write long posts I find it irritating that their best comments are usually overlooked. The new shorter attention spans and the limitations on comprehension have made posting anything more than a few sentences a waste of time.

[erfalf]

Nor did I excuse myself. Sure looked like a judgement to me. Some are more addicted to that behavior than others Kettle.

When people write long posts I find it irritating that their best comments are usually overlooked. The new shorter attention spans and the limitations on comprehension have made posting anything more than a few sentences a waste of time.

The internet isn't particularly adept at conveying nuance or tone. For that I am always apologetic as I really don't really have a confrontational approach to life, just direct.

[swake]

Swake, none of what you just posted actually addresses the broader economy, only individual's pocket books. Not to say that is not important, just that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Exploding the debt by between 2.5 and 5 trillion dollars isn't impacting to the larger economy? That cutting taxes to create jobs is a proven failure?

You didn't read.

[swake]

The Trump Foundation has now been sent a "Notice of Violation" by the New York Attorney General and has been ordered to stop fundraising immediately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-ordered-to-stop-fundraising-by-ny-attorney-generals-office/2016/10/03/1d4d295a-8987-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?postshare=6141475514082539&tid=ss_tw

Trump is the one with the illegal foundation that is in deep trouble with regulators. Crooked Trump starting off another week so, so well. Winning!

[Townsend]

Trump appears to suggest veterans with PTSD are not 'strong'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-veterans-ptsd-not-strong-229050

Yet he'll still win Oklahoma by over 95%...whatever.  Pay attention to the local stuff...there's nothing we can do about national.

[Townsend]

Giuliani: Trump 'better for the United States than a woman'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-woman-229026

[erfalf]

Trump appears to suggest veterans with PTSD are not 'strong'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-veterans-ptsd-not-strong-229050

Yet he'll still win Oklahoma by over 95%...whatever.  Pay attention to the local stuff...there's nothing we can do about national.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/no-donald-trump-did-not-attack-veterans-today/

Quit reading Politico.

[erfalf]

Giuliani: Trump 'better for the United States than a woman'

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-woman-229026

And Obama is a Muslim. Anyone hear really think he meant what Politico says he meant?

Again, quit reading Politico.

This is the reason Trump is gaining support. The more people make up, the more people are drawn to him. Stop doing it. You are only helping his cause.

[erfalf]

The Trump Foundation has now been sent a "Notice of Violation" by the New York Attorney General and has been ordered to stop fundraising immediately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-ordered-to-stop-fundraising-by-ny-attorney-generals-office/2016/10/03/1d4d295a-8987-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?postshare=6141475514082539&tid=ss_tw

Trump is the one with the illegal foundation that is in deep trouble with regulators. Crooked Trump starting off another week so, so well. Winning!

It's a good read.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-foundation-probe-shows-ny-attorney-general-uses-office-to-protect-clinton-attack-her-political-foes/

I'll get to your economics stuff later when I have a little more time. I promise I am not ignoring it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I really get what you are saying, but that thud that you think I may be for will only be bigger the next time, because we keep adjusting the safety net to allow for wilder and more erratic behavior. I honestly think a bigger thud was necessary. I also think hundreds if not thousands of people should have been in prison for double dealing and screwing their customers over. In the housing crisis, the banks more or less were protected on several fronts. They sold the crap to their investors, then shorted it, and then the government backed them for the rest of it. The mortgages themselves didn't get a bailout. The owners of the Mortgage backed securities didn't either. Only the morons that were holding CDO's worth billions that had to pay because those mortgages, and therefore mortgage securities became worth nothing. The changes I'm saying may happen with stock purchases ability just go to exacerbate the problem even further and in the end screw you and I even more. Plus it completely wrecks the whole notion of price discovery in an open market. Is it worth it? Do you disagree with my outlook?

Look there was bad behavior all around, but just as we hold politicians to a higher standard (let the jokes begin), I hold professional bankers to a bit of a higher standard as well. Goldman, who you and I both know is all kinds of tied up with Washington, came out of 2008 scot free.

And it will happen again, CDO's are being sold again. Banks are being risky again, and they will never stopped double dealing if it serves their interest. Look at the market run up s

And honestly, I have never advocated for any of Trump's position. It is just so much easier to critique Clinton as she is (less) of a moving target. Her positions change but not near as rapidly. I still don't take Trump seriously. I do think there would be some differences to a Trump candidacy, particular in the staffing of his administrations, judges, etc.

Part of me knows we are too far down the rabbit hole. But the other part hopes that there are enough people who care. DJI is up 65% over the last five years, and on what? Do you really see the lives of John & Jane Taxpayer improving by that margin?

My "Trump Sucks" response is an umbrella that covers all of these - the changes made are what allow this.  But let's dive deeper!



Big Thud.   That is/was the whole point of the entire Federal Reserve system that we have had since the 30's - STOP the big thud!   And it has worked brilliantly until the last few decades when it started to be dismantled.  There is NO inherent value or "need" to have a deep thud.  Right on about selling garbage and leaving consumers holding the bag - that is the easily foreseen end result of "deregulation" we have been 'enjoying'.  The only reason there could possibly be any surprise on anyone's behalf is the long discussed lack of knowledge of history.  This was "done to death" in the past, and now Faux News Minions, people like Trump, and various others of that ilk have been advancing the idea of going back to the "good ole days" of robber barons and child labor!   And now ya gotta ask...are ya feelin' lucky, .... oh, wait - wrong mixed metaphor!   Ya gotta ask why hasn't the Republican dominated Congress advanced, or even allowed true changes that would put those protections back in place.  This has nothing to do with Yellen - she is dealing with the short end of a very stinky sh$t stick that she was handed.  The Fed has used every tool available, and we are truly at a good place economically right now, but the thunderstorms are gathering on the horizon - and Congress still sits on their thumbs enjoying that particular sensation!

Higher Standard.  (2nd paragraph).  There ain't no such thing!  You cannot be naive enough to believe any of those two sentences - I know you are older than that.  Bad behavior all around...yeah, goes to the whole concept of the last 3 decades of "enlightened self-interest", which gave us banking deregulation.  It was a stupid idea on both sides - Dem and Repub.  We know from history that is BS.  And yet, nothing has been done for 8 years now - by the Congress dominated by whom??   In spite of calls for quite a while, early on, by Obama to put a bill on his desk to fix the mess.  Today, business as usual.  This is what happens when you can buy your own personal Congress.  Remember all of Inhofe's pleas to big oil to give him more money, so he can help them even more...?

CDO's.   Big banks are not being risky 'again' - they never stopped!   No reason or rule to make them stop.

Trump.  Never advocated, but implicitly support by "so much easier to critique Clinton".  You said it, but not quite sure you realize the full extent of the part saying she is less of a moving target....on the big principle points of working for certain causes, you are dead on - she has been very consistent, veering slightly from time to time to broaden appeal.  Some of them are extremely distasteful to me (2nd Amendment topics) but many are very good and align closely to how I feel.  Social justice type issues.  As for Trump changing after elected - well, no, he wouldn't have a different Presidency.  He has shown in business that he is bigoted and racist - if you don't believe any of the comments he has personally made in this election, at the very least there is undisputed evidence of this with his real estate business dealings in New York for decades!  Consciously, intentionally refusing to allow people of color to rent his apartments/homes.  That is on the record.  Fines were paid.  Court orders were put in place.  There is no doubt or wiggle room for rationalization.   My earlier quote -  "Well, yeah, I don't really agree with that..." still applies to the mindset of people who are going to vote for him.

Rabbit hole.   Not yet, but the options are narrowing.  Things were bad when Billy Bob was elected and we ended up with the single best run of economic prosperity in the countries history.  AND had 4 years of budget surplus!  And history repeats, as we as a nation would know if we paid attention.  Obama entered with the second biggest mess since the 1929 Depression.  And we got 8 years of good, solid economic performance.  Came back from the second biggest abyss in 90 years!  Recovered better than any other recession - perhaps the optics don't shine quite that direction, but that just shows how deep a hole it was we had to come back from!

And the DJI was about 7,949 when Obama took office.  Today it is what...?  About 18,290 a little while ago this morning.  That is 230%!  I hope you got in on some of that - if you have a 401k you did get some of it.  Not as much as the C suite, of course, but some.... 

As for me and you - and all the other 99% John and Jane's, we are not benefiting from this "rising tide" anywhere near like the 1%.  That has been the topic of many discussions here and elsewhere for a long, long time.  It goes to policies put in place by the people who can afford to pay for their very own Congress to help them first, then if scraps are left, let the 99% bottom feeders grab a little....  That's why we have a minimum wage in place that is 40% less in real dollar terms than it was in 1968.  Goes to a comment I have made many times - a commentary on philosophical bents if you will.  To Democrats, low wages are the problem.  To Republicans, low wages are the solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The internet isn't particularly adept at conveying nuance or tone. For that I am always apologetic as I really don't really have a confrontational approach to life, just direct.

You just ruined it for me...I was enjoying the confrontational approach...!



I also can't believe no one has called me out on my name calling of Trump yet.  Mildly surprised.   When writing that post, I just had a wild-hair moment and decided to channel my "inner Trump" and ask my self, WWTS?   What Would Trump Say?  Verbal vomit, of course, so I just threw it out there...  and talk about a big thud...no reaction whatsoever!  Oh, well, I guess that means that just like Trump, I will have to become more and more extreme and show increasing signs of instability and psychosis!