DC Tom Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Do you know what you are talking about? Yes. I've followed Caterpillar since before you were born.
Tiberius Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes. I've followed Caterpillar since before you were born. Therefore you know how much those tariffs suck for them.
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 33 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Yes. I've followed Caterpillar since before you were born. hatched. Fixed it for you.
Tiberius Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Fixed it for you. Oh God! Now that is not funny! So you are bad at humor, too! I've tried really hard to like you. I really have.
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Fixed it for you. Thanks. Well-deserved correction.
Tiberius Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Thanks. Well-deserved correction. I've brought you two together. I'm so proud
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 17 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: I wonder if a booming economy with infrastructure work will help CAT? The USA will win any trade war with whomever and we'll be in a much better place than before any retaliatory tariffs bring our trading partners to their knees the table. What infrastructure work? Certainly not any increasing from federal funding increases..there is no stinking money as revenue keeps decreasing on the federal level...
Koko78 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Makes sense. Lower the drug price, sell more product. It's about time that the government did something about drug companies forcing US consumers to subsidize R&D through outrageous pricing schemes, while they sold the same drugs in other countries for pure profit at a fraction of the US price. 2
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Not saying Trump has no bearing on this..but I think the below prolly has a ton more Quote abandonment rates ranging from7.5% for those with $0 copay to more than 75% for copays greater than $350.” Looks to me like the drug makers are shifting pricing policy to sell more drugs in this market climate and shifting insurance plans, then claim it is due to Trump, as we all know Trump likes to be slurped, and then hope for more tax breaks and bigger protections on trade agreements... BTW, I agree with what Trump did in the USMCA on longer protections..we want companies to make a chit ton of money when they hit a breakthrough..so they keep funding and researching breakthroughs!
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 46 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: What infrastructure work? Certainly not any increasing from federal funding increases..there is no stinking money as revenue keeps decreasing on the federal level... Horseshit.
IDBillzFan Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 48 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: What infrastructure work? Certainly not any increasing from federal funding increases..there is no stinking money as revenue keeps decreasing on the federal level... Actually, no.
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-widens-to-fifth-highest-ever-cbo-reports-2018-09-11 Quote Receipts fell by 3%, with corporate taxes dropping by $5 billion, while revenue from income and payroll taxes rose marginally. 5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Actually, no. so..where is the discrepancy of these two ? I ask in all seriusness 1
Bray Wyatt Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-widens-to-fifth-highest-ever-cbo-reports-2018-09-11 so..where is the discrepancy of these two ? I ask in all seriusness You had stated "there is no stinking money as revenue keeps decreasing at the federal level." However the article he quotes says, "For the fiscal year as a whole — which started last October — all federal revenues are up by $31 billion." Edited October 25, 2018 by Bray Wyatt
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 13 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: You had stated "there is no stinking money as revenue keeps decreasing at the federal level." However the article he quotes says, "For the fiscal year as a whole — which started last October — all federal revenues are up by $31 billion." Lets see what the first month of the fiscal brings...yearly totals include periods before tax cust went into effect. Either way..with all us agreeing spending is way outpacing revenues..where does the idea that infrastructure spending is going to move up in a significant way come from?
DC Tom Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Lets see what the first month of the fiscal brings...yearly totals include periods before tax cust went into effect. Point being that you're comparing two completely different numbers that aren't comparable. Don't compare August 2018 to FY2018. Compare Aug 2017 to Aug 2018 and see what the differences are. (Note: I don't know what the differences are. It's just a much more valid comparison.)
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Point being that you're comparing two completely different numbers that aren't comparable. Don't compare August 2018 to FY2018. Compare Aug 2017 to Aug 2018 and see what the differences are. (Note: I don't know what the differences are. It's just a much more valid comparison.) I agree ..and this statement from the CBO was for August 2018 vs August 2017 Receipts fell by 3%, with corporate taxes dropping by $5 billion, while revenue from income and payroll taxes rose marginally.
TPS Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Lets see what the first month of the fiscal brings...yearly totals include periods before tax cust went into effect. Either way..with all us agreeing spending is way outpacing revenues..where does the idea that infrastructure spending is going to move up in a significant way come from? The article is fudging the numbers to support a point. The first half of the fiscal year ends in March; for the first four months of the current fiscal year Oct - Jan, revenues in 2018 > 2017 (for each month individually) because they are based on the previous tax rates; tax revenues are lower in every month after Jan except April, which is also based on 2017 tax rates. Here is the Treasury Report: TAble 1 has the data. Edited October 25, 2018 by TPS adding info
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 23 minutes ago, TPS said: The article is fudging the numbers to support a point. The first half of the fiscal year ends in March; for the first four months of the current fiscal year Oct - Jan, revenues in 2018 > 2017 (for each month individually) because they are based on the previous tax rates; tax revenues are lower in every month after Jan except April, which is also based on 2017 tax rates. Here is the Treasury Report: TAble 1 has the data. I am not quite following
TPS Posted October 26, 2018 Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: I am not quite following It supports your point, revenues are Lower. The reason Revenues were up the first half of the fiscal year (which starts in October) was because we were still under 2017 tax rates for the first 4 of 6 months. If you look at the data, once the tax cut went into effect in February, revenues went down relative to revenues in the same month in the previous tax year. For example, January 2018 revenues are higher than January 2017, but February 2018 revenues--and every month after that--has lower revenues than 2017 (except April, which is also based on 2017 rates). The article posted (by LA) was a biased editorial, not an analysis. Edited October 26, 2018 by TPS 1
Recommended Posts