wnyguy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Trump could counteract this proposal by offering $5,000. to a first time trailer home buyer. Point. Set. Match. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 When the Biden-Harris administration handed out too much money during Covid, an unpopular spike in inflation was the result. In response, Ms. Harris proposes to outlaw price increases. But price controls never work. Businesses facing higher input costs because of inflation can’t survive selling their wares at a loss. Venezuela illustrates how price controls drive the private sector into the ground and the general public into poverty. The good news is Ms. Harris may know better. Her vague proposal Friday appears to be designed to inoculate herself politically from her inflation problem. Yet it isn’t at all clear Ms. Harris believes in markets. She has railed against corporate profits, whether in healthcare, energy or financial services. If even the incredibly competitive market for groceries, with its minuscule profit margins, shouldn’t be left to market forces, what industry should? Her economic agenda is price controls, higher energy costs, record regulatory costs on the private sector, and an array of government handouts. Will this result in higher output? For his part, Donald Trump rejects core tenets of the free-market model such as the idea that voluntary exchange can benefit both the buyer and the seller. He promises to impose massive across-the-board tariffs. He wants to keep interest rates artificially low and devalue the dollar. His running mate JD Vance argues that the key to higher wages is reducing imports and immigration. How do any of these policies raise output? Mr. Trump’s emerging second-term agenda is dominated by populist themes and looks markedly less pro-growth than the first. Pandering by politicians is nothing new, but it’s clearly on the rise as both parties abandon sound economic principles. Both parties’ embracing the notion of excluding tips from taxes is a good example. There is no good policy reason why waiters should get to exempt a portion of their income from taxes while truck drivers, and everyone else, pay taxes on all their income. Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris are in an arms race to buy votes with taxpayer funds. Both are promising they won’t reform the entitlement programs that are the main driver of our massive, growing deficits. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K D Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 11 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Trump could counteract this proposal by offering $5,000. to a first time trailer home buyer. Point. Set. Match. Double-wide or single axle? What if you have a trailer for your wife but then also another one next door for your baby mama? Can you only claim the primary residence? There's a lot to consider here We don't want no baby mama drama! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irv Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 45 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Mexico will pay for it Good one!😁 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: When the Biden-Harris administration handed out too much money during Covid, an unpopular spike in inflation was the result. In response, Ms. Harris proposes to outlaw price increases. But price controls never work. Businesses facing higher input costs because of inflation can’t survive selling their wares at a loss. Venezuela illustrates how price controls drive the private sector into the ground and the general public into poverty. The good news is Ms. Harris may know better. Her vague proposal Friday appears to be designed to inoculate herself politically from her inflation problem. Yet it isn’t at all clear Ms. Harris believes in markets. She has railed against corporate profits, whether in healthcare, energy or financial services. If even the incredibly competitive market for groceries, with its minuscule profit margins, shouldn’t be left to market forces, what industry should? Her economic agenda is price controls, higher energy costs, record regulatory costs on the private sector, and an array of government handouts. Will this result in higher output? For his part, Donald Trump rejects core tenets of the free-market model such as the idea that voluntary exchange can benefit both the buyer and the seller. He promises to impose massive across-the-board tariffs. He wants to keep interest rates artificially low and devalue the dollar. His running mate JD Vance argues that the key to higher wages is reducing imports and immigration. How do any of these policies raise output? Mr. Trump’s emerging second-term agenda is dominated by populist themes and looks markedly less pro-growth than the first. Pandering by politicians is nothing new, but it’s clearly on the rise as both parties abandon sound economic principles. Both parties’ embracing the notion of excluding tips from taxes is a good example. There is no good policy reason why waiters should get to exempt a portion of their income from taxes while truck drivers, and everyone else, pay taxes on all their income. Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris are in an arms race to buy votes with taxpayer funds. Both are promising they won’t reform the entitlement programs that are the main driver of our massive, growing deficits. Total sh*tshow. To think that the last 6 nominees for president have been Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Harris is depressing and embarrassing. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phypon Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 818,000 less jobs created than initially reported. Yeah, she has a great economic track record... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Trumps 2017 tax cuts.. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Add some context here, Neddy. The top 1% earns about a quarter of all income and pays almost half of federal income tax. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Former President Trump ran up the national debt by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis of their fiscal track records. Why it matters: The winner of November's election faces a gloomy fiscal outlook, with rapidly rising debt levels at a time when interest rates are already high and demographic pressure on retirement programs is rising. Both candidates bear a share of the responsibility, as each added trillions to that tally while in office. But Trump's contribution was significantly higher, according to the fiscal watchdogs at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, thanks to both tax cuts and spending deals struck in his four years in the White House. By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning. Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term. If you exclude COVID relief spending from the tally, the numbers are $4.8 trillion for Trump and $2.2 trillion for Biden. State of play: For Trump, the biggest non-COVID drivers of higher public debt were his signature tax cuts enacted in 2017 (causing $1.9 trillion in additional borrowing) and bipartisan spending packages (which added $2.1 trillion). For Biden, major non-COVID factors include 2022 and 2023 spending bills ($1.4 trillion), student debt relief ($620 billion), and legislation to support health care for veterans ($520 billion). Biden deficits have also swelled, according to CRFB's analysis, due to executive actions that changed the way food stamp benefits are calculated, expanding Medicaid benefits, and other changes that total $548 billion. Between the lines: Deficit politics may return to the forefront of U.S. policy debates next year. Much of Trump's tax law is set to expire at the end of 2025, and the CBO has estimated that fully extending it would increase deficits by $4.6 trillion over the next decade. High interest rates make the taxpayer burden of both existing and new debt higher than it was during the era of near-zero interest rates. And the Social Security trust fund is rapidly hurtling toward depletion in 2033, which would trigger huge cuts in the retirement benefits absent Congressional action. What they're saying: "The next president will face huge fiscal challenges," CRFB president Maya MacGuineas tells Axios. "Yet both candidates have track records of approving trillions in new borrowing even setting aside the justified borrowing for COVID, and neither has proposed a comprehensive and credible plan to get the debt under control," she said. "No president is fully responsible for the fiscal challenges that come along, but they need to use the bully pulpit to set the stage for making some hard choices," MacGuineas said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: Former President Trump ran up the national debt by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis of their fiscal track records. Why it matters: The winner of November's election faces a gloomy fiscal outlook, with rapidly rising debt levels at a time when interest rates are already high and demographic pressure on retirement programs is rising. Both candidates bear a share of the responsibility, as each added trillions to that tally while in office. But Trump's contribution was significantly higher, according to the fiscal watchdogs at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, thanks to both tax cuts and spending deals struck in his four years in the White House. By the numbers: Trump added $8.4 trillion in borrowing over a ten-year window, CRFB finds in a report out this morning. Biden's figure clocks in at $4.3 trillion with seven months remaining in his term. If you exclude COVID relief spending from the tally, the numbers are $4.8 trillion for Trump and $2.2 trillion for Biden. State of play: For Trump, the biggest non-COVID drivers of higher public debt were his signature tax cuts enacted in 2017 (causing $1.9 trillion in additional borrowing) and bipartisan spending packages (which added $2.1 trillion). For Biden, major non-COVID factors include 2022 and 2023 spending bills ($1.4 trillion), student debt relief ($620 billion), and legislation to support health care for veterans ($520 billion). Biden deficits have also swelled, according to CRFB's analysis, due to executive actions that changed the way food stamp benefits are calculated, expanding Medicaid benefits, and other changes that total $548 billion. Between the lines: Deficit politics may return to the forefront of U.S. policy debates next year. Much of Trump's tax law is set to expire at the end of 2025, and the CBO has estimated that fully extending it would increase deficits by $4.6 trillion over the next decade. High interest rates make the taxpayer burden of both existing and new debt higher than it was during the era of near-zero interest rates. And the Social Security trust fund is rapidly hurtling toward depletion in 2033, which would trigger huge cuts in the retirement benefits absent Congressional action. What they're saying: "The next president will face huge fiscal challenges," CRFB president Maya MacGuineas tells Axios. "Yet both candidates have track records of approving trillions in new borrowing even setting aside the justified borrowing for COVID, and neither has proposed a comprehensive and credible plan to get the debt under control," she said. "No president is fully responsible for the fiscal challenges that come along, but they need to use the bully pulpit to set the stage for making some hard choices," MacGuineas said. Axios probably wants credit for this copypaste, Neddy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 Forgot this thread existed. Can’t believe no wait yes I can that someone thought the money would go to American citizens Harris wants to do that at the national level. Im sure she’ll get asked about it at an interview - remember, there are hacks that are glad she’s not talking to explain this ***t. Communists. Useful idiot Communists 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted August 26 Share Posted August 26 You’re a dupe if you believed anything else 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K D Posted August 26 Share Posted August 26 This is wild. What is happening to this country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts