BringBackFergy Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, aristocrat said: so 52k per person is what? 15 trillion per year? No sweat.
Backintheday544 Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Gary M said: So basically kill the economy, that's all you had say, kill the economy, got it. which part there kills the economy?
SoTier Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 59 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: I doubt Biden will do most of this but a "New" New Deal for America's 21st century is desperately needed. The cut taxes and deregulation scheme of the past 40 years have failed. It is time for the federal government to actually rebuild the nation and invest in its people and not its corporations. I would put these as just a few things that would make America a much better place. I would also pack the Supreme Court, if the GOP can play hardball ruthless politics then why not have an actual opposition party instead of GOP lite. 1- Universal Healthcare - Healthcare costs too much in the US and I see no reason why the US couldn't do what all other industrialized countries do and simply pay for healthcare via taxes like we already do for police, fire, military and various other services. The private system costs too much due to an insane billing bureaucracy where healthcare providers have to negotiate rates with insurance companies year after year and providers having to bill 10 different companies about all the different plans and coverages. It's a useless mess that makes the American people less able to go into business for themselves (So many can't start a business because they don't want to lose their healthcare coverage.) You would likely pay less in taxes for coverage you know isn't going away and isn't filled with deductibles and co-insurance than you would in private taxes to large corporations taking some off the top for a service that adds no value (how does a private health financing system add to innovation?) 2- Infrastructure - Trump's grand infrastructure plan was to give massive tax breaks and privatize infrastructure. The US needs to spend trillions on green and new infrastructure. It is estimated that over the lifetime of an infrastructures use for every dollar that was spent on that infrastructure the project will generate 7 dollars worth of economic activity. Simply put stuff built during the New Deal is helping to move commerce and generating economic activity. These projects have a long lasting positive impact. 3- Forgive Student Debt- Forgiving student debt and giving some rebate to those who have paid back in the last 5 years, is probably one of the most impactful things you can do to stimulate the economy. You wouldn't give an 18 year old with no collateral a 100k business or personal loan yet we are OK with them getting saddled with student loans? Sorry, this is just non-sense, a simple wall street speculation tax would easily pay for this type of program in a decade. 4- No cost at point of use trade school and public college - If the US wants to be competitive with countries like Germany we need an educated and skilled workforce. If the US wants to drive down the cost of college offer students a high quality free alternative. 5- End public student loans and have limited bankruptcy protections on private student loans- Assuming you have done number 4, you return student loans to the private sector. Private schools will not only face downward pressure from public no cost schools but they will be tasked with reducing tuition for students who no longer have access to tax supported student loans. 6- End the drug war - Treat drugs as a public health issue. Legalize and tax marijuana at the state level and decriminalize all other drugs. 7- End the overseas wars - It's about time we bring our military home and stop being the world's policemen. Trump made this promise and all he did was yo-yo troop levels like Obama, veto the stop arming terrorists act so he can keep selling arms to the Saudi's, and continue to bomb 7 nations 400% more. We no longer have the money or the appetite for a failed and expensive foreign policy. Take the money we spend there and spend it on taking care of the troops and deploying the military to fix the water systems and other vital infrastructure. All excellent points. I'll add some thoughts of my own to your points. #1 Universal health care would result in Americans paying more in taxes but saving more in health care costs. It would also be a tremendous boost to entrepreneurship, small businesses, and people working in the so-called gig economy as well as in other industries that have traditionally not provided health insurance like agriculture or restaurant industry. #4 No cost at point of use trade school and public college. From the 1860s when the Morrill Act established land grant public colleges and universities until about the 1980s, public colleges were supported almost entirely by taxpayer revenues. When I attended Buffalo State in the late 1960s and early 1970s, my tuition was a token amount of $200 per semester, which went to the State Dormitory Authority to pay to build new dormitories. Tuition at the CUNY colleges in NYC was free to city residents. SUNY and CUNY weren't unique. Most states had similarly token tuition at public colleges. Many community colleges around the country didn't charge tuition, either. My graduate tuition at the U of Nebraska in the mid 1970s was about $300 a semester. Free or almost free tuition at public colleges is not some radical socialist idea but an American tradition. We need to resurrect it. One point I would add is that I would hope that a new administration and new Congress would address agricultural policy, which essentially dates back to the original New Deal and favors corporate farming over family farms. I think that in addition to supporting farmers producing staple ag products like corn, wheat, soybeans, and meat, there needs to be programs to encourage and support produce farming in diverse areas (including within urban areas), as well as programs to assist the transfer of farming enterprises from older farmers to younger ones. 2
unbillievable Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 4 hours ago, BringBackFergy said: Biden should do the following: 1) Guarantee a $1000/week payment to every American (or illegal alien...sorry, immigrant) over age 13; 2) Health insurance for every human, born or unborn; 3) Free college education for every person (age 14-78) with tuition forgiveness so long as they take 2 credit hours of “Patriotic/Democratic Theory”; 4) Every person plants a tree...in their yard, school or anywhere they want; 5) Defund the military...it’s just world police. Dumb I want a floatie chair and a VR headset.
BringBackFergy Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 2 hours ago, unbillievable said: I want a floatie chair and a VR headset. Done!
snafu Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 11 hours ago, billsfan89 said: Tax cuts a deregulation are a proven failure. It failed under George W Bush and it failed under Trump. Trump initiated tax cuts and deregulation during a red hot economy, he promised 3% or high GDP growth would occur year after year. The highest it got to was 2.9% and 2.2% (2018 and 2019 respectively) which were similar to Obama's numbers (2015 2.9% and 2021 2.2% many other years in the 2% range.) AKA despite all the tax cuts and deregulation you say helps the economy by the simplest metrics couldn't get the US economy to 3% growth when the tax cuts and deregulation occurred during an uptime for the economy (by those metrics.) Perhaps a better economic approach would be to invest in infrastructure? Instead of massive tax giveaway perhaps massive infrastructure spending is a better idea? Infrastructure has a longer lasting and more sustained impact on economic growth. From a common sense perspective infrastructure built during the New Deal is still being used today to help move people and commerce, the interstate highway system built from the late 50's to early 90's is still helping move commerce. Are the George W Bush tax cuts still jumping any economic activity? I’m certainly no economic expert. I just want to point out that you say Trump took over a red hot economy from Obama, and you called his tax cuts and deregulation a failure. But then you compare the GDP’s of the two and they are the same. So Obama’s economy was not red hot, or Trump’s actions were not failures. I’d add (without checking) that wages grew under Trump, and pre-Covid unemployment was very low. Those two factors must do something to add to tax revenue lost when taxes were cut, no? Also, I think the tariffs had a lot to do with putting the brakes on Trump’s economy. To me, it appears that he may have thought that the drag on GDP that the tariffs cause are worth the price to pay in the long run. Then again, I’m just speculating — I could easily be wrong. Finally, I think the administration and Congress were gearing up for a stimulus bill and then impeachment, then Covid, then the election pushed that aside. 2020 turns out to be the year that nothing got done.
Gary M Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 6 hours ago, unbillievable said: I want a floatie chair and a VR headset. free electric cars for everyone
snafu Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Gary M said: free electric cars for everyone Thats small thinking. Jetpacks are the future. 2
billsfan89 Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 4 hours ago, snafu said: I’m certainly no economic expert. I just want to point out that you say Trump took over a red hot economy from Obama, and you called his tax cuts and deregulation a failure. But then you compare the GDP’s of the two and they are the same. So Obama’s economy was not red hot, or Trump’s actions were not failures. I’d add (without checking) that wages grew under Trump, and pre-Covid unemployment was very low. Those two factors must do something to add to tax revenue lost when taxes were cut, no? Also, I think the tariffs had a lot to do with putting the brakes on Trump’s economy. To me, it appears that he may have thought that the drag on GDP that the tariffs cause are worth the price to pay in the long run. Then again, I’m just speculating — I could easily be wrong. Finally, I think the administration and Congress were gearing up for a stimulus bill and then impeachment, then Covid, then the election pushed that aside. 2020 turns out to be the year that nothing got done. Wages adjusted for inflation grew in 2018 by 1% for the average American family (median numbers are misleading as me and Jeff Bezos have a median wealth of 80 billion.) Now that's nothing to sneeze at but the promise of the tax cuts was a 4k increase in wages to your average family which considering the average American makes about 54k a year 1% growth is about 540 dollars nothing to write home about. Even under Obama's last few years wage growth after inflation was in the .6 to.8% range meaning that the tax cuts only really increased wages by about .3 to .5% a fairly marginal increase. Unemployment had been trending down for 7 years before Trump who called those numbers phony until he got into office and suddenly they were credible. The real impact tax cuts have is on earnings and the income of the wealthy. The stock market grew a lot but that growth went into stock buybacks and dividends. Considering that about 40% of US stocks are owned internationally the Trump tax cuts represented a massive transfer of wealth outside of the country. Also these stock market gains are short lived as since they don't really come from any sustainable demand growth they kind of fizzle once earnings normalize to the new tax burden. If the US were to take the hundreds of billions in tax cuts and spend it on massive infrastructure programs that would have both a more positive impact to wages (hundreds of thousands of jobs and economic activity around the projects) and sustain growth longer term since infrastructure can be used for decades to help facilitate the movement of people, goods and ideas (internet infrastructure.) Heck if you really wanted to juice the economy short term student debt forgiveness is a better way to do so. Putting houndreds to possibly thousands of dollars a month into the hands of tens of millions of people in their 20's and 30's would grow demand far better than tax cuts that mostly go to the wealthy and corporations. 1
snafu Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 44 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Wages adjusted for inflation grew in 2018 by 1% for the average American family (median numbers are misleading as me and Jeff Bezos have a median wealth of 80 billion.) Now that's nothing to sneeze at but the promise of the tax cuts was a 4k increase in wages to your average family which considering the average American makes about 54k a year 1% growth is about 540 dollars nothing to write home about. Are you confusing wages with "take home pay"? The tax cuts were sold to give the average American $x more in take home pay. That means lower taxes result in more paycheck. That's not wages. And your INCOME and Jeff Bezos' INCOME averaged is not $80 billion. If you made nothing, his annual income isn't $160 Billion. I just looked and his base salary is $81,000 or so. 44 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Even under Obama's last few years wage growth after inflation was in the .6 to.8% range meaning that the tax cuts only really increased wages by about .3 to .5% a fairly marginal increase. Unemployment had been trending down for 7 years before Trump who called those numbers phony until he got into office and suddenly they were credible. So, back to your original point, more evidence that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation are just as good, if not better, than Obama's "red hot" economy. 44 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: The real impact tax cuts have is on earnings and the income of the wealthy. The stock market grew a lot but that growth went into stock buybacks and dividends. Considering that about 40% of US stocks are owned internationally the Trump tax cuts represented a massive transfer of wealth outside of the country. Also these stock market gains are short lived as since they don't really come from any sustainable demand growth they kind of fizzle once earnings normalize to the new tax burden. And my 401K, and probably yours, and probably everybody's pension, etc. Higher stock prices help more working stiffs' retirements than you give any credit for. 44 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: If the US were to take the hundreds of billions in tax cuts and spend it on massive infrastructure programs that would have both a more positive impact to wages (hundreds of thousands of jobs and economic activity around the projects) and sustain growth longer term since infrastructure can be used for decades to help facilitate the movement of people, goods and ideas (internet infrastructure.) Heck if you really wanted to juice the economy short term student debt forgiveness is a better way to do so. Putting houndreds to possibly thousands of dollars a month into the hands of tens of millions of people in their 20's and 30's would grow demand far better than tax cuts that mostly go to the wealthy and corporations. I agree about infrastructure spending. That was the plan before 2020 hit, with all the distractions and other massive spending which derailed the plan. Infrastructure spending is probably one of the only "common ground" issues left. As for student debt forgiveness, that's a big problem for any business who holds the notes and the securities that back those notes. Wanna see 2008 repeat itself? On top of that, mandating student debt forgiveness is government taking, pure and simple, and it can't be justified so that it would withstand legal challenges.
billsfan89 Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, snafu said: Are you confusing wages with "take home pay"? The tax cuts were sold to give the average American $x more in take home pay. That means lower taxes result in more paycheck. That's not wages. And your INCOME and Jeff Bezos' INCOME averaged is not $80 billion. If you made nothing, his annual income isn't $160 Billion. I just looked and his base salary is $81,000 or so. So, back to your original point, more evidence that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation are just as good, if not better, than Obama's "red hot" economy. And my 401K, and probably yours, and probably everybody's pension, etc. Higher stock prices help more working stiffs' retirements than you give any credit for. I agree about infrastructure spending. That was the plan before 2020 hit, with all the distractions and other massive spending which derailed the plan. Infrastructure spending is probably one of the only "common ground" issues left. As for student debt forgiveness, that's a big problem for any business who holds the notes and the securities that back those notes. Wanna see 2008 repeat itself? On top of that, mandating student debt forgiveness is government taking, pure and simple, and it can't be justified so that it would withstand legal challenges. Just to clarify a few things. I really do appreciate the good faith arguments by the way. My overall point is that tax cuts and deregulation don't meaningfully help the economy. Tax cuts juice things short term but they don't really improve demand and stock prices will get normalized. Programs that put money into working people's hands directly at a larger and more direct rate (Like student and medical debt forgiveness) are better stimulus policies and infrastructure and education investment is better for short and long term growth. 1- The US government holds almost all student debt. Private banks stopped issuing student loans well over a decade ago. So the government would be forgiving debt it is owed and making up the money with a Wall Street transaction tax (which would also have the added benefit of eliminating high frequency trading.) So there is no problem in terms of 2008 since the debt has already been socialized. 2- Most workers don't have 401k's or hold less than 10k in a 401k. Most workers don't have a pension either. So while the stock market is important to some extent spending hundreds of billions on tax cuts to juice the markets some more when the market is going up 20-30% year over year anyway isn't really helping that much. Is it worth 250 billion a year added to the debt to help the S and P 500's moving average go up 35-40% instead of 30%? Could we not spend that money better elsewhere? 3- The point in bringing up the Chamber of Commerce stats under Obama (which i didn't not qualify as a "red hot" economy) was to add context that despite adding in hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts when GDP growth was regularly above 2%, unemployment was low and the stock market was regularly gaining above 20% yearly was to point out that the economy didn't really take off for the average worker or even in the context of what Chamber of Commerce people would traditionally measure. Unemployment fell at the same rate, GDP couldn't eclipse 2015 gains, and there was only a moderate bump to the stock market. Even take home pay wasn't increased that much for middle and working class people. People were getting more in their pay checks but then getting smaller refunds due to less SALT deduction and withholding amounts changing (basically a bait and switch.) Obama raised the top tax bracket and cut federal spending once the recession was over (going from 1.3 trillion in 2010 to 665 billion in 2017 the last year of Obama's budgets and going as low as 438 billion in 2015) and the GDP numbers, stock market numbers, wages adjusted for inflation were rising slightly and drop in unemployment rate were about the same as seen in 2018 and 2019 when taxes were lower. So did 250 billion a year in tax cuts really do much? I am not the biggest fan of Obama (not nearly progressive enough on policy in my opinion) but he basically was a centrist pol who governed like a 1970's Republican. 4- Infrastructure was never on Trump's agenda. Trump unveiled an infrastructure plan (I want to say either in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses) and all it basically proposed was giving tax breaks and privatizing infrastructure. Which is a huge disaster as it would basically amount to the public paying huge tolls for tax subsidized private infrastructure. It wasn't an FDR like Tennessee Valley Authority type system or an Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It wasn't even money to simply fix and stabilize current crumbling infrastructure. That plan was also doomed to fail because it also relied on state and local funding to which is hard to stabilize because those budgets are more volatile. Then in 2019 when the Dems were willing to pass a 2 trillion dollar plan Trump basically pulled out of negotiations and never came back to it because he has zero ability to get things done that aren't pre-packaged by the GOP (like the tax bill which was ready to go by Paul Ryan.) 2017/18 horrid plan for reference. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_TrumpInfra_Feb2018.pdf Edited October 28, 2020 by billsfan89
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 On 10/27/2020 at 5:06 PM, keepthefaith said: The priorities are the same regardless of who wins. In no particular order 1. Cut fed spending and reduce budget deficits, this includes serious entitlement revisions and might include some tax increases 2. End decades of illegal immigration. Right-size legal immigration and plug the problems at borders and visa over stays 3. End Obamacare, it simply didn't deliver what was promised and is not worth defending. Get into the nuts and bolts of health insurance and put new regs and rules in place that allow for more choice, health spending accounts for all and favorable tax treatment for all. Revise Medicaid to reduce the rate of cost increase. 4. Continue peace progress in Middle East started by Trump and fully exit Iraq and Afganistan. Reduce Chinese manufacturing dependence and continue tough stance on China and include China's poor environmental record. 5. Continue economic development efforts in areas in poor economic condition 6. Clean up 2016 domestic/government election interference and keep anyone involved in this fiasco from last Obama Admin out of government service. Prosecute wrondoers. 7. Make clear what are state and fed responsibilities and keep fed out of state and local issues. Example, states that run university programs should find their own ways to reduce college expenses for their citizens. 8. Tell populace that race relations are the responsibility of the people. Fed gov to continue to enforce laws in this area but beyond that it's up to the people. 9. Get fed gov out of exclusive college loan business and return it back to private sector and to the state university systems. Continue some fed grant programs. nice job composing the list and I think he's done well......it exposes the TDS sufferers who cannot agree with at least ONE on your list as an accomplishment......as expected though....the hatred for the PERSON versus POLICIES runs that deep......there are a few (COUGH....AGAIN) on PPP.............
snafu Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Just to clarify a few things. I really do appreciate the good faith arguments by the way. My overall point is that tax cuts and deregulation don't meaningfully help the economy. Tax cuts juice things short term but they don't really improve demand and stock prices will get normalized. Programs that put money into working people's hands directly at a larger and more direct rate (Like student and medical debt forgiveness) are better stimulus policies and infrastructure and education investment is better for short and long term growth. 1- The US government holds almost all student debt. Private banks stopped issuing student loans well over a decade ago. So the government would be forgiving debt it is owed and making up the money with a Wall Street transaction tax (which would also have the added benefit of eliminating high frequency trading.) So there is no problem in terms of 2008 since the debt has already been socialized. 2- Most workers don't have 401k's or hold less than 10k in a 401k. Most workers don't have a pension either. So while the stock market is important to some extent spending hundreds of billions on tax cuts to juice the markets some more when the market is going up 20-30% year over year anyway isn't really helping that much. Is it worth 250 billion a year added to the debt to help the S and P 500's moving average go up 35-40% instead of 30%? Could we not spend that money better elsewhere? 3- The point in bringing up the Chamber of Commerce stats under Obama (which i didn't not qualify as a "red hot" economy) was to add context that despite adding in hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts when GDP growth was regularly above 2%, unemployment was low and the stock market was regularly gaining above 20% yearly was to point out that the economy didn't really take off for the average worker or even in the context of what Chamber of Commerce people would traditionally measure. Unemployment fell at the same rate, GDP couldn't eclipse 2015 gains, and there was only a moderate bump to the stock market. Even take home pay wasn't increased that much for middle and working class people. People were getting more in their pay checks but then getting smaller refunds due to less SALT deduction and withholding amounts changing (basically a bait and switch.) Obama raised the top tax bracket and cut federal spending once the recession was over (going from 1.3 trillion in 2010 to 665 billion in 2017 the last year of Obama's budgets and going as low as 438 billion in 2015) and the GDP numbers, stock market numbers, wages adjusted for inflation were rising slightly and drop in unemployment rate were about the same as seen in 2018 and 2019 when taxes were lower. So did 250 billion a year in tax cuts really do much? I am not the biggest fan of Obama (not nearly progressive enough on policy in my opinion) but he basically was a centrist pol who governed like a 1970's Republican. 4- Infrastructure was never on Trump's agenda. Trump unveiled an infrastructure plan (I want to say either in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses) and all it basically proposed was giving tax breaks and privatizing infrastructure. Which is a huge disaster as it would basically amount to the public paying huge tolls for tax subsidized private infrastructure. It wasn't an FDR like Tennessee Valley Authority type system or an Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It wasn't even money to simply fix and stabilize current crumbling infrastructure. That plan was also doomed to fail because it also relied on state and local funding to which is hard to stabilize because those budgets are more volatile. Then in 2019 when the Dems were willing to pass a 2 trillion dollar plan Trump basically pulled out of negotiations and never came back to it because he has zero ability to get things done that aren't pre-packaged by the GOP (like the tax bill which was ready to go by Paul Ryan.) 2017/18 horrid plan for reference. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_TrumpInfra_Feb2018.pdf 1. I believe that the US Student Debt is held by private institutions and may be subsidized by the Federal Government. If so, foregoing that debt is not solely the Federal Government's decision to make. And doing so would cripple a Trillion Dollar industry. Not only that, what about the students who paid their debt. Do we just tell them "sorry suckers"? What about fannie and freddy mortgages? Those are oppressive, too. Why stop at student debt? Why not, instead, focus on the institutions and the fact that tuition and room and board have risen astronomically. Who looks at the books of the private institutions that are supposed to be "non-profit", yet have incredible unspent endowments. 2. A quick search shows that 56% of US workers have a retirement plan. I'd say that a significant number of the remaining 44% are invested in the market in some other way, like SEPP's etc. The market being a fatcat-only playground is a fallacy. Perhaps the rich make more money, but that's because they have more money to invest. You can't downplay the effect of the market on the general, non-rich population. 3. You said "red hot" economy. You said Trump instituted his tax cut and deregulation plan during a red hot economy. I just went back and looked at your post. Like I said earlier, the tax cuts and sugar boost allowed Trump to institute his tariffs (also a source of tax revenue paid for by US citizens). There's more to it than just cut taxes and make people happy. Even so, it didn't hurt the GDP. It added $250Billion in deficit (which nobody likes), but it also brought corporations back to the US and likely increased the job base. 4. Infrastructure was most certainly on Trump's agenda with Congress. He and Congress rolled out a $2trillion plan. It didn't go anywhere, but you can't say it was never on the agenda. Edited October 28, 2020 by snafu
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 28, 2020 Posted October 28, 2020 9 hours ago, Gary M said: free electric cars for everyone ...Musk does NOT approve of your message......
billsfan89 Posted October 29, 2020 Posted October 29, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, snafu said: 1. I believe that the US Student Debt is held by private institutions and may be subsidized by the Federal Government. If so, foregoing that debt is not solely the Federal Government's decision to make. And doing so would cripple a Trillion Dollar industry. Not only that, what about the students who paid their debt. Do we just tell them "sorry suckers"? What about fannie and freddy mortgages? Those are oppressive, too. Why stop at student debt? Why not, instead, focus on the institutions and the fact that tuition and room and board have risen astronomically. Who looks at the books of the private institutions that are supposed to be "non-profit", yet have incredible unspent endowments. 2. A quick search shows that 56% of US workers have a retirement plan. I'd say that a significant number of the remaining 44% are invested in the market in some other way, like SEPP's etc. The market being a fatcat-only playground is a fallacy. Perhaps the rich make more money, but that's because they have more money to invest. You can't downplay the effect of the market on the general, non-rich population. 3. You said "red hot" economy. You said Trump instituted his tax cut and deregulation plan during a red hot economy. I just went back and looked at your post. Like I said earlier, the tax cuts and sugar boost allowed Trump to institute his tariffs (also a source of tax revenue paid for by US citizens). There's more to it than just cut taxes and make people happy. Even so, it didn't hurt the GDP. It added $250Billion in deficit (which nobody likes), but it also brought corporations back to the US and likely increased the job base. 4. Infrastructure was most certainly on Trump's agenda with Congress. He and Congress rolled out a $2trillion plan. It didn't go anywhere, but you can't say it was never on the agenda. A few quick fact checks below. The point is that every time tax cuts and deregulation is tried as an economic model we lose money on that investment. The Bush tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, the Trump tax cuts didn't and the deregulatory policies of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies led to drastic boom bust cycles that have routinely destabilized the economy. Massive public works and infrastructure programs are a proven winner economically but the GOP never pursue them because corporations don't write pols from both parties checks to build public works programs, they want a return on their investment. We have seen Trump's exact policies fail with George W Bush, why would they work this time? 1- The US government directly owns 92% of student debt and can easily buy back the other 8% as most of those agencies are either quasi government agencies or companies that get preferred treatment from the government. So yes the government could forgive all the debt and make it up in the budget via a Wall Street Speculation Tax (Which exists on stock trades in other nations.) The reason for student debt forgiveness isn't because debt is oppressive. The reason for debt forgiveness is to act as an economic stimulus. One where the government can get hundreds of dollars monthly into the hands of young consumers in perpetuity, and yes if you paid back money in the last 5 years you should get a portion of that via a rebate prorated to how recently you paid off that debt. And unlike forgiving people's mortgages or credit card debt it doesn't carry the moral hazard because it was completely irresponsible for the US government to issue those loans to mostly 17/18 year olds with no collateral to begin with. And I would also argue that the bailout in 2008 should have been of the consumers and not big banks for that same reason. If you go all the way back to my original post I did say that public universities and trade schools should be free and the US government should stop issuing student loans going forward (and have bankruptcy protections on loans) as a means to both address the past/current problem (people with student debt they will never pay back) and keep the problem from occurring in the future. It is a two fold problem. You can address the college cost issue any way you want, but in the end you can't have a generation saddled with debt that they never should have had access to draining the economy and tax cuts do nothing to solve that. 2- 56% of workers may have a retirement program but what percentage of those workers have more than 10k in those plans, its a shockingly low percentage? The stock market isn't the economy, yes I do agree that it isn't irrelevant but I would also argue that any tax cut and deregulatory scheme has no long term impact on stocks because neither pump up sustainable increases in demand. Stocks go up because earnings go up because the tax burden is lower. The company buys back stocks and increases dividends prices go up. But the company doesn't have any actual increase in business. Their customers aren't booming because a middle class family have 500 dollars more a year. So there isn't really anything driving that growth besides a lower tax bill. So earnings slow down and things eventually normalize. It's not sustainable. 3- I stand corrected in the terms I used. To correct myself the real economy wasn't "red hot" under Obama. However the same stock market, unemployment numbers (which are misleading) and GDP were all growing fairly solidly and didn't see much of a difference when tax cuts were added on top of it. The comparison to the Obama economy was to say that the economic needle wasn't moved much despite adding 250 billion dollars of stimulus to it. Proving that regulation cuts and tax cuts don't move the needle. The GOP senate would have cried and clutched pearls if a Dem president proposed an unfunded 250 billion dollar a year infrastructure program but for tax cuts and wars they bend over backwards to take it. Also stocks are 40% owned by foreign investors. That means the Trump tax bill was a huge transfer of wealth from out of the US. Whereas the infrastructure build in the US actually stays in the US and helps US citizens. 4- If Trump was serious about a massive infrastructure deal he would have actually pushed a deal when the GOP controlled the House and Senate in 2017 and 2018. Instead he floated a bizarre privatization scheme that would effectively give tax breaks to make infrastructure private. The 2 trillion dollar deal he was working on in 2019 was a complete farce as Trump knew the GOP would shrink any infrastructure deal down as they outright told him they would. If it was a priority he would have bent his parties will to get it done when they were in control of the government. Edited October 29, 2020 by billsfan89 1
unbillievable Posted October 29, 2020 Posted October 29, 2020 12 weeks vacation a year, and 1 year vacation every 5.
spartacus Posted October 29, 2020 Posted October 29, 2020 23 hours ago, Gary M said: free electric cars for everyone to be powered by the Rube Goldberg magic box of never-ending & free electricity (no coal, oil or natural gas used in the creation of said electric) 1
Gary M Posted October 29, 2020 Posted October 29, 2020 14 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...Musk does NOT approve of your message...... Why, he will get gubment money for them, maybe 30% of cost to build 1
unbillievable Posted October 29, 2020 Posted October 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, Gary M said: Why, he will get gubment money for them, maybe 30% of cost to build All electric cars will be include governors that prevent speeds above the posted limit.
Recommended Posts