https://www.wsj.com/articles/deficit-projected-to-top-1-trillion-starting-next-year-1531950742 Basically trump is going to be running deficits close to what obama was spending during the recession. We have low unemployment and economy seems to be pretty healthy. Does it make sense to have massive deficit spending in times like this? I guess you could argue the massive deficit spending is what is causing the low unemployment. In that case is it a sustainable policy?
(1) No, I don't think any economist I've ever heard thinks this is a very good idea. Most see the tax cut as like mainlining sugar when your body already has plenty of energy. You're just definitely going to crash. (2) No, I don't think anyone thinks it is sustainable. Maybe it works long enough to get him reelected in 2020. Or maybe, if GOP keeps enough seats, they can start dismantling the safety net programs that they've hated for so long.
I believe in fairness. Obviously BHO gave handouts and unemployment benefits to the lazy and the undeserving. For balance, Trump gave tax relief to large multinationals because they are job creators and the most hard working. One half for you. Two for me and my kind. It's common sense!
This is going to work out a whole lot like climate change - lots of people are going to try and raise the alarm, but nobody's going to get motivated and pay attention until we've already crossed the event horizon of the debt black hole. Bush started the spending spree, Obama continued it, and Trump is making it an art form. Bush and Obama had some pretty good reasons to do it, but Trump isn't acting irresponsibly in a void. It's going to take a selfless politician to take an approval rating hit and put the spending genie back in the bottle, and I dont think even his biggest fans would describe Trump as selfless with a straight face. Also, can't ignore the House's vital role in this. It's not all on the Executive. I think giving Trump sole ownership is only going to make everybody who identifies as a Republican reflexively disagree without even thinking.
The surplus. 'Taxes are higher than needed so we're going to take less' It was the combination of the tax cut with Iraq/Afghanistan that was the real problem regarding the deficit under Bush.
I was thinking of war expenditures. I appreciate that there is not full unanimity on how the specifics were actually implemented, but on 9/12/01 a fairly sizable unexpected expenditure was somewhat unavoidable. Historically, deficit spending has been pretty normal during wars.
stop parroting rhetoric; this just underscores ur ignorance, that these multi-national Corp create job overseas. one of the biggest handouts in recent time has been Trump giving tax cuts to the top 1/2%, off the backs of the middle class
The top 3% pay 50% of all taxes. Top 10% pay a majority of all taxes. Even if there was no government spending, defense,ss,interest, and Medicare and Medicaid would be more than federal intake.
Let’s be clear here that Obama ran up the debt because he put the wars that Bush financed into the budget to try and do the fiscally responsible thing in actually recognizing our debt to try and pay it off. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
logical argument, free of the meaningless rhetoric parroted by Invisible Fan ~ commensurate to their income relative to the total pie ~ commensurate to their income relative to the total pie
Look, this is, at its base, simple. We must have infrastructure or there is no mobility. A nation cannot for long function effectively without an organized and consistent system for commerce, law, defense/security, preservation of the environment in which we live and from which we obtain the raw materials for our goods. A people are happier and more productive when there exists an organized approach to healthcare and education. The point of government is to manage the boundaries under which these needs to addressed and to make them maximally efficient. Without funding--taxes--government cannot operate to see all these needs are addressed. Industry that grows wealth does not do so without the infrastructure or systems the government manages. Industry does not grow wealth without the creativity of employees educated in the public school system. To suggest industry merits exception from funding the common good (through taxes) is obtuse. To suggest the ultra-rich who have obtained their wealth from these industries merit relief from funding the common good that produced it is obtuse. The upper 0.1% are able to live extravagantly. Cutting their tax rate has not led them to live any more extravagantly. They are not buying that many more yachts or vacation homes or Bentleys or whatever than they already had been. Their newly increased cash isn't pouring back into circulation to benefit the overall economy. Wages of the workers whose efforts produced the wealth are not increasing. The money just builds in the accounts of the ultra-rich. Woohoo. They are winning. Their number is bigger. Yippee. Their assertion is that the middle class--the employees that performed the actual work to produce their wealth--should also fund to the fullest possible extent the infrastructure and systems that enabled them to grow their wealth. And if we don't pay enough to fund it, then services should be cut. The infrastructure that enables transport of raw materials to industry and finished goods to consumers is falling into ruin because the rich have lobbied not to pay for them. The quality of our education is plummetting because the ultra-rich have lobbied not to pay for the education and training of the people who enable their wealth. If we are to reduce the deficit, we must return to requiring those with the capacity to fund the public good--those who have ultimately benefitted most concretely from it--to pay more taxes. When our nation experienced its greatest industrial growth and its greatest improvements in quality of life, taxes on the most wealthy was substantially higher. The tax loopholes that existed were intentially designed to funnel corporate profits into infrastructure that fueled more and continued growth so that the quality of life for every American would do nothing but improve. If you want to MAGA, these are the conditions to which we must return.
14,000 factory workers and white-collar employees stand to lose their jobs; expect plant closings in Mi, Ohio and Md this restructuring plan triggered a 4+% increase in GM's stock price this morning, https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...al-motors-plant-closures-job-cuts/2113275002/, skyrocketing volatility, so much so that trading for GM stock was halted due to extremely volatility ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/g...t-of-production-halts-and-job-cuts-2018-11-26 )
