Are the tax cuts working?

17,210 Views | 183 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Jack Bauer
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Business investment growth was negative, and that ain't great after a round of huge tax cuts. Also notable that last years 3% growth was revised down to 2.5%.

It's due to inflated numbers in 2017. Just moving around GDP increases. It's not like the % didn't happen, it's more like it happened in 2017 during the end of his first year and was never credited for it. But looks like it makes a good headline. No credit then, no credit now. Pieces of garbage. No one reads the articles. Just the headlines.

It seems like yesterday when the Fed was raising rates with little inflation and at the same time that many economists were predicting a recession this year. This is why POTUS is constantly attacking the Fed. They always seem to be wrong (unless Obama is in office, then keep the interest rate close to zero).

You should blame the federal reserve but instead you blame Americans for wanting to keep more of their hard earned money you ass.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Business investment actually shrank by 1% 2nd quarter.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Our accountant assured us that the Trump tax cuts saved us money .

So short of calling her a liar.....I'm just going to relax .
BearTruth13
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Our accountant assured us that the Trump tax cuts saved us money .

So short of calling her a liar.....I'm just going to relax .


You could always check it yourself.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearTruth13 said:

Canada2017 said:

Our accountant assured us that the Trump tax cuts saved us money .

So short of calling her a liar.....I'm just going to relax .


You could always check it yourself.


Not bothering to compare 2 voluminous sets of tax returns when I pay an expert to do it .

Yep....I'm lazy that way.

HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:


This really isn't that surprising. A recession was going to happen around this time regardless of who was president. It's the natural economic cycle. It will be interesting to see how bad it is and long it lasts though. It seems like market fundamentals are better this time around, but we shall see.

Except for the massively inflated budget deficit this time around, I believe in 2008 it was half or less than the FY2018 deficit. That deficit will seriously constrain the options available for the next recovery.
I don't think more federal spending is the answer to a recovery, so I'm actually glad the government will be restrained to pass even more spending under the guise of trying to fix the economy. However, if we are being honest, that won't stop the spenders on the left and right from still spending much more than we bring in, so it really doesn't matter.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you "think" the answer is. Generally speaking, the consensus view is that economic recovery after a downturn requires stimulus of some kind. That can be in the form of spending/subsidising designed to create jobs, or tax cuts targeted in such a way as to incentivise job growth. Either way, those are deficit increasing options, and if the deficit is already sky high when a downturn hits (like it probably will be this time, thanks GOP), we will be severely limited in what we can do. The maxim I've always heard is something like "save in the good times so that you can spend in the bad times".

What you're describing, freezing or cutting spending during a downturn, is what the Europeans would call "Austerity". Just ask the Greeks and Italians how fun and effective that was for them after the 2008 crash. Economists have been screaming since 2017 that the tax cuts were ill-timed and not needed while the economy was doing relatively well, I'm worried that we will get to see first-hand why they were saying that.

3 years after a huge round of tax cuts, we are running $1tril+ deficits while we face an economic crisis, the stock market is below where it was when the tax laws changed, the Fed has already used just about every tool available to them by lowering interest rates to near 0 and handing out cash, more bailouts of industries (e.g. airlines) are probably coming, Washington is floating an $850bil stimulus package and even more tax cuts...
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:


This really isn't that surprising. A recession was going to happen around this time regardless of who was president. It's the natural economic cycle. It will be interesting to see how bad it is and long it lasts though. It seems like market fundamentals are better this time around, but we shall see.

Except for the massively inflated budget deficit this time around, I believe in 2008 it was half or less than the FY2018 deficit. That deficit will seriously constrain the options available for the next recovery.
I don't think more federal spending is the answer to a recovery, so I'm actually glad the government will be restrained to pass even more spending under the guise of trying to fix the economy. However, if we are being honest, that won't stop the spenders on the left and right from still spending much more than we bring in, so it really doesn't matter.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you "think" the answer is. Generally speaking, the consensus view is that economic recovery after a downturn requires stimulus of some kind. That can be in the form of spending/subsidising designed to create jobs, or tax cuts targeted in such a way as to incentivise job growth. Either way, those are deficit increasing options, and if the deficit is already sky high when a downturn hits (like it probably will be this time, thanks GOP), we will be severely limited in what we can do. The maxim I've always heard is something like "save in the good times so that you can spend in the bad times".

What you're describing, freezing or cutting spending during a downturn, is what the Europeans would call "Austerity". Just ask the Greeks and Italians how fun and effective that was for them after the 2008 crash. Economists have been screaming since 2017 that the tax cuts were ill-timed and not needed while the economy was doing relatively well, I'm worried that we will get to see first-hand why they were saying that.

3 years after a huge round of tax cuts, we are running $1tril+ deficits while we face an economic crisis, the stock market is below where it was when the tax laws changed, the Fed has already used just about every tool available to them by lowering interest rates to near 0 and handing out cash, more bailouts of industries (e.g. airlines) are probably coming, Washington is floating an $850bil stimulus package and even more tax cuts...


You left out "Flu pandemic that has shut down the country"
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

HuMcK said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:


This really isn't that surprising. A recession was going to happen around this time regardless of who was president. It's the natural economic cycle. It will be interesting to see how bad it is and long it lasts though. It seems like market fundamentals are better this time around, but we shall see.

Except for the massively inflated budget deficit this time around, I believe in 2008 it was half or less than the FY2018 deficit. That deficit will seriously constrain the options available for the next recovery.
I don't think more federal spending is the answer to a recovery, so I'm actually glad the government will be restrained to pass even more spending under the guise of trying to fix the economy. However, if we are being honest, that won't stop the spenders on the left and right from still spending much more than we bring in, so it really doesn't matter.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you "think" the answer is. Generally speaking, the consensus view is that economic recovery after a downturn requires stimulus of some kind. That can be in the form of spending/subsidising designed to create jobs, or tax cuts targeted in such a way as to incentivise job growth. Either way, those are deficit increasing options, and if the deficit is already sky high when a downturn hits (like it probably will be this time, thanks GOP), we will be severely limited in what we can do. The maxim I've always heard is something like "save in the good times so that you can spend in the bad times".

What you're describing, freezing or cutting spending during a downturn, is what the Europeans would call "Austerity". Just ask the Greeks and Italians how fun and effective that was for them after the 2008 crash. Economists have been screaming since 2017 that the tax cuts were ill-timed and not needed while the economy was doing relatively well, I'm worried that we will get to see first-hand why they were saying that.

3 years after a huge round of tax cuts, we are running $1tril+ deficits while we face an economic crisis, the stock market is below where it was when the tax laws changed, the Fed has already used just about every tool available to them by lowering interest rates to near 0 and handing out cash, more bailouts of industries (e.g. airlines) are probably coming, Washington is floating an $850bil stimulus package and even more tax cuts...


You left out "Flu pandemic that has shut down the country"
Sounds like the kind of thing you plan contingencies and save up for. Too bad we disbanded our pandemic response team in 2018 and started running trillion $ deficits after massively cutting taxes in a strong economy. Imagine the stimulating effect those same exact tax cuts could have had right now, instead of being wastefully implemented when the economy was doing well. We never even got the 3% GDP growth we were promised.
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Jack Bauer said:

HuMcK said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:


This really isn't that surprising. A recession was going to happen around this time regardless of who was president. It's the natural economic cycle. It will be interesting to see how bad it is and long it lasts though. It seems like market fundamentals are better this time around, but we shall see.

Except for the massively inflated budget deficit this time around, I believe in 2008 it was half or less than the FY2018 deficit. That deficit will seriously constrain the options available for the next recovery.
I don't think more federal spending is the answer to a recovery, so I'm actually glad the government will be restrained to pass even more spending under the guise of trying to fix the economy. However, if we are being honest, that won't stop the spenders on the left and right from still spending much more than we bring in, so it really doesn't matter.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you "think" the answer is. Generally speaking, the consensus view is that economic recovery after a downturn requires stimulus of some kind. That can be in the form of spending/subsidising designed to create jobs, or tax cuts targeted in such a way as to incentivise job growth. Either way, those are deficit increasing options, and if the deficit is already sky high when a downturn hits (like it probably will be this time, thanks GOP), we will be severely limited in what we can do. The maxim I've always heard is something like "save in the good times so that you can spend in the bad times".

What you're describing, freezing or cutting spending during a downturn, is what the Europeans would call "Austerity". Just ask the Greeks and Italians how fun and effective that was for them after the 2008 crash. Economists have been screaming since 2017 that the tax cuts were ill-timed and not needed while the economy was doing relatively well, I'm worried that we will get to see first-hand why they were saying that.

3 years after a huge round of tax cuts, we are running $1tril+ deficits while we face an economic crisis, the stock market is below where it was when the tax laws changed, the Fed has already used just about every tool available to them by lowering interest rates to near 0 and handing out cash, more bailouts of industries (e.g. airlines) are probably coming, Washington is floating an $850bil stimulus package and even more tax cuts...


You left out "Flu pandemic that has shut down the country"
Sounds like the kind of thing you plan contingencies and save up for. Too bad we disbanded our pandemic response team in 2018 and started running trillion $ deficits after massively cutting taxes in a strong economy. Imagine the stimulating effect those same exact tax cuts could have had right now, instead of being wastefully implemented when the economy was doing well. We never even got the 3% GDP growth we were promised.
When on earth has either side "saved". Give me a break. You are politicizing an event when people are dying. You are a sick mother fcker Hunter.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

HuMcK said:

Jack Bauer said:

HuMcK said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:

contrario said:

HuMcK said:


This really isn't that surprising. A recession was going to happen around this time regardless of who was president. It's the natural economic cycle. It will be interesting to see how bad it is and long it lasts though. It seems like market fundamentals are better this time around, but we shall see.

Except for the massively inflated budget deficit this time around, I believe in 2008 it was half or less than the FY2018 deficit. That deficit will seriously constrain the options available for the next recovery.
I don't think more federal spending is the answer to a recovery, so I'm actually glad the government will be restrained to pass even more spending under the guise of trying to fix the economy. However, if we are being honest, that won't stop the spenders on the left and right from still spending much more than we bring in, so it really doesn't matter.

Thing is, it doesn't really matter what you "think" the answer is. Generally speaking, the consensus view is that economic recovery after a downturn requires stimulus of some kind. That can be in the form of spending/subsidising designed to create jobs, or tax cuts targeted in such a way as to incentivise job growth. Either way, those are deficit increasing options, and if the deficit is already sky high when a downturn hits (like it probably will be this time, thanks GOP), we will be severely limited in what we can do. The maxim I've always heard is something like "save in the good times so that you can spend in the bad times".

What you're describing, freezing or cutting spending during a downturn, is what the Europeans would call "Austerity". Just ask the Greeks and Italians how fun and effective that was for them after the 2008 crash. Economists have been screaming since 2017 that the tax cuts were ill-timed and not needed while the economy was doing relatively well, I'm worried that we will get to see first-hand why they were saying that.

3 years after a huge round of tax cuts, we are running $1tril+ deficits while we face an economic crisis, the stock market is below where it was when the tax laws changed, the Fed has already used just about every tool available to them by lowering interest rates to near 0 and handing out cash, more bailouts of industries (e.g. airlines) are probably coming, Washington is floating an $850bil stimulus package and even more tax cuts...


You left out "Flu pandemic that has shut down the country"
Sounds like the kind of thing you plan contingencies and save up for. Too bad we disbanded our pandemic response team in 2018 and started running trillion $ deficits after massively cutting taxes in a strong economy. Imagine the stimulating effect those same exact tax cuts could have had right now, instead of being wastefully implemented when the economy was doing well. We never even got the 3% GDP growth we were promised.
When on earth has either side "saved". Give me a break. You are politicizing an event when people are dying. You are a sick mother fcker Hunter.


Exactly. When in our history has the US federal government "set aside" $1 trillion for contingency?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.