Sign in to follow this  
OILERMAN

A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good

Recommended Posts

The LA Times that is an unbiased source. Interpreted by Cliff Clavin Ph.D in postage. . 

 

Obama and your hero economists like Paul Krugman said that 3% growth was a pipe dream. 1.5% is the new normal. So where did the 3% growth come from? Oh yeah cash for clunkers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the line that there is "no surge in wage growth relative to history or GDP growth.".. 

 

So wages are only rising 3% not the 1.5% Libtard economists predicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama takes over in a recession so the economy can only get better. He has TARP an $800B stimulus and 8 years of rock bottom interest rates. So what did we get?

 

1.6% annual GDP growth and 1.6% annual wage growth and an unemployment rate of 4.8%. 

 

Trump comes in with no easy recovery to bounce from. In his 2 full years we have 2.6% GDP growth, 2.6% wage growth with both those numbers ramping up over 3% in the first quarter and a current unemployment rate if 3.6%. 

 

Yep tax cuts suck. 

Edited by Rolltide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

“Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend,” its analysts write. “Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.”

This is one of the pieces that made no sense.  Okay I get that the tax cut wasn't considered a traditional stimulus, but just how much it would drive benefits considering the economy was already doing very well.  Then when you looked at the primary beneficiaries (top 1%) who had been spending for most of the last decade -- there was very little pent up demand.  And the corporations were on record saying that they would be very cautious with new investments; choosing instead to return windfall profits to their shareholders (many of whom are in the aforementioned upper echelon).  

 

But of course the repubs knew this after their extensive, comprehensive hearings on the matter.  or not.  The biggest rewrite of the tax code in 30 years, done in this fashion is inexcusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rolltide said:

I like the line that there is "no surge in wage growth relative to history or GDP growth.".. 

 

So wages are only rising 3% not the 1.5% Libtard economists predicted?

Wage growth was higher from 2014-2016 than it has been under Trump, dumbass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corporate tax cut is something that should help our economy over a long period of time. It makes our companies more competitive and hopefully helps to keep some jobs in this country. 

 

Trump's tax plan was not a stimulus designed to get us out a recession in 6 months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rolltide said:

The corporate tax cut is something that should help our economy over a long period of time. It makes our companies more competitive and hopefully helps to keep some jobs in this country. 

 

Trump's tax plan was not a stimulus designed to get us out a recession in 6 months. 

More dumbassery. This has been disproven both times it has been tried in the last 2 decades.

 

How do tax cuts make our companies more competitive? They just give most of that money to executives and shareholders. They spend some of it buying up their competition and lowering competition. They are not using a significant amount of that money to either hire more employees or paying higher wages for current employees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rolltide said:

The LA Times that is an unbiased source. Interpreted by Cliff Clavin Ph.D in postage. . 

 

Obama and your hero economists like Paul Krugman said that 3% growth was a pipe dream. 1.5% is the new normal. So where did the 3% growth come from? Oh yeah cash for clunkers. 

Congressional Research Service...is not the LA Times. It’s really hard to be this stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The repubs are the party of the rich.  R-I-C-H.  Trumps biggest changes benefited who?  More that the 1% benefited.  The people who own stocks benefited, too.

So, real republicans benefited.

 

6 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

The tax cuts did almost nothing for ordinary Americans and may even have cost them money. The apparent gains in their income were negligible and short-lived. Wealthy Americans reaped the benefits of lower taxes and higher dividends

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

 

The middle class constitutes a slim majority of the U.S. population (52%), but that's still less than it has been in nearly half a century.

The share of income captured by the middle class has fallen from 60% in 1970 to 43% in 2014.

The middle class is shrinking due to an increase in population at the extreme bottom and top of the economic spectrum.

 

 Increases in the number of immigrants, for example, push down median incomes because immigrants on average make less money.*

 

REPUBS

The top 20% includes the lawyers and the doctors and the managers, all the way up to the CEOs and beyond. They marry later, are better educated and have larger and richer social networks. They're healthier, too – they have statistically lower rates of heart disease and obesity.

 

These are excerpts from the article based on Pew research.  So @Rolltide @Little Earl @TennesseeTuxedo @TitanDuckFan@ben4titans and a few others on my ig list have benefited greatly.  I received some divi increases.

 

 

Edited by Number9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Number9 said:

The repubs are the party of the rich.  R-I-C-H.  Trumps biggest changes benefited who?  More that the 1% benefited.  The people who own stocks benefited, too.

So, real republicans benefited.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

 

The middle class constitutes a slim majority of the U.S. population (52%), but that's still less than it has been in nearly half a century.

The share of income captured by the middle class has fallen from 60% in 1970 to 43% in 2014.

The middle class is shrinking due to an increase in population at the extreme bottom and top of the economic spectrum.

 

 Increases in the number of immigrants, for example, push down median incomes because immigrants on average make less money.*

 

REPUBS

The top 20% includes the lawyers and the doctors and the managers, all the way up to the CEOs and beyond. They marry later, are better educated and have larger and richer social networks. They're healthier, too – they have statistically lower rates of heart disease and obesity.

 

These are excerpts from the article based on Pew research.  So @Rolltide @Little Earl @TennesseeTuxedo @TitanDuckFan@ben4titans and a few others on my ig list have benefited greatly.  I received some divi increases.

 

 

The poor stayed poor under 8 Obama years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.