This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 28 Dec 17 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
You're over-exaggerating his role. The downward trend in joblessness started in 2010 and the growth forecasts that have been fulfilled were projected before he became President. Funny how people are quick to blame labour for our current mess but won't blame the opposition for the good things that are happening.
|
|
 Ray in Houston  Houston 28 Dec 17 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
Yeah, the one that fits your anti-Republican agenda. Well obviously the more you earn, the more you save – that's how percentages work! The high earners also pay the most tax overall. In 2014, people earning above 0,000 paid 51.6% of all individual income taxes, even though they accounted for only 2.7% of tax payers.
Taxes are almost always regressive for this reason; it's not just current income that determines ability to pay. Taxes on wealth accumulation, such as dividends or capital gains, are taxed at lower rates than income, meaning those at the top of the wealth scale get a break and typically pay a lower composite rate of tax than a middle class working stiff. So spare me your tears for the wealthy for the taxes they pay. They weren't paying their fair share even before Trump made them all "a lot richer" - as he told his golf buddies at Mar-a-Lago last week.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Dec 17 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
You're over-exaggerating his role. The downward trend in joblessness started in 2010 and the growth forecasts that have been fulfilled were projected before he became President.
You are far from the only one spinning this line but the reality is that a year in.....the, 'it would have happened anyway' line of argument is just denying reality. Business confidence is affected differently by who is sitting in the Oval office. There are plenty of areas to criticise Trump on.....hell, his approach to the economy itself being one of them.....but that fact that the American economy is doing well and that is because capitalists have faith in Trump is undeniable. What happens once his tax cuts work through.....and seeing whether they are used for reinvestment and jobs or are just pocketed to shareholders....that will be far more the test of whether his tax plans made sense. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 4.16pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Dec 17 2.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
You're a socialist, so you'll never believe in tax cuts – especially for corporations! The fact of the matter is the US economy under Trump is booming DESPITE what all the 'experts' said. I'm a socialist, and if tax cuts work, then by all means utilise tax cuts. Its a capitalist economic model. If it boosts the income so that revenue generation for the state surpasses the baseline pre-tax cut level, then its worked. However, if you have to start cutting services, and public spending, to balance tax cuts, then its a mistake - even if the economy is booming - because the end result is that generated income isn't providing treasury revenue - and the people who carry the cost of those cuts are typically the poorer members of society who are dependent on those services. Even if the economy is booming bigger than ever, if it doesn't translate into a real profit; for workers, the state and those dependent on the state - Then its a failure. My concern is the scale of these tax cuts, is a bit like taking the treasury income, and putting it on Black - We're not talking about a small gamble, with a mitigated risk here - If this policy doesnt work and deliver a boost in income across the board of a fairly remarkable scale - The ordinary people of the US are going to be f**ked. After all, if I save 500 bucks in tax, but then have to spend more than 500 bucks compensating for state and government cuts then its a failure.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 28 Dec 17 2.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
This article shows that the narrow classical economic model favored by tax cut proponents demonstrates that the recently well publicised pay bumps announced in the wake of this policy are nothing more than political messaging and not due to the impact of the economics. The reality is only a small gain by companies will end up in the pockets of employees who will lose their meagre tax cuts in a couple of years and end up worse off in the long run. It's Political junk as it's very unpopular but republicans will lie and use their favourite cards of race, guns and religion to try and divert the attention of the electorate come the midterms next year. One interesting point to note is that about one third of the benefit will go to foreign shareholders so Trump is actually giving more away to foreigners than to the vast majority of US citizens. He's a liar and a hypocrite.
As much as Republicans tried to rig this bill so that the sting in the tail wouldn't be felt at least until after the 2018 mid-terms, many elected officials are already sensing the electoral shoeing coming their way in November. They are quitting in unusually high numbers. Trump likes to claim that Republicans are 5-0 in special elections, which isn't true because they're 4-1 (the "1" being Roy Moore's loss in Alabama). So, as Trump lies go, this one's not too outrageous. However, when you look behind the Won/Lost numbers, you see a massive swing - often 20% or more - to Democrats in virtually ever election for state and local office. [Link] Such a swing will comfortably overwhelm the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate and will also - as happened in Virginia - have a massive impact on state legislatures and municipal office holders as an extremely motivated anti-Trump vote comes out in force as it has done in all of these off-schedule elections. 2010's "Red Wave" - that demolished the Democrats in the House and Senate - was a swing of 9%. The 2018 swing to Democrats is shaping up to be as much as twice that. Edited by Ray in Houston (28 Dec 2017 3.04pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Dec 17 2.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You are far from the only one spinning this line but the reality is that a year in.....the, 'it would have happened anyway' line of argument is just denying reality. Business confidence is affected differently by who is sitting in the Oval office. There are plenty of areas to criticism Trump on.....hell, his approach to the economy itself being one of them.....but that fact that the American economy is doing well and that is because capitalists have faith in Trump is undeniable. What happens once his tax cuts work through.....and seeing whether they are used for reinvestment and jobs or are just pocketed to shareholders....that will be far more the test of whether his tax plans made sense. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 2.49pm) Economies only really work if they're delivering a reasonable standard of living to everyone. Just because companies might be making 'great profits' it doesn't translate that is passing on to others down the food chain. As we saw under Blair, there was a phenomenal economic growth year on year, but the use of cheap migrant labour allowed companies to restrict wage growth considerably whilst benefitting from tax cuts, and I'd argue that whilst the economy was booming in some areas; the working classes were worse off. In the end that knocked on to the state, in terms of increased welfare which in turn led to stealth taxes and increased borrowing.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Dec 17 3.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Economies only really work if they're delivering a reasonable standard of living to everyone. Just because companies might be making 'great profits' it doesn't translate that is passing on to others down the food chain. As we saw under Blair, there was a phenomenal economic growth year on year, but the use of cheap migrant labour allowed companies to restrict wage growth considerably whilst benefitting from tax cuts, and I'd argue that whilst the economy was booming in some areas; the working classes were worse off. In the end that knocked on to the state, in terms of increased welfare which in turn led to stealth taxes and increased borrowing. 'Economies only really work if they're delivering a reasonable standard of living to everyone'. So when did you decide on that Jamie? Under that criteria no economy has ever 'worked' ever. Economies work within their limitations and what is possible. What a 'good' economy would work and look like could be a good topic for philosophical discussion. We are one year into Trump's affect on the economy. He's been good for confidence but until now that's what it's mainly been. But now he's passed his tax programme....with one or two changes.....this...I imagine will really come to tell the tale on whether Trump 'the business man' will be good for the economy. He has to make up for those tax cuts to business and more to justify the give away....he talks about jobs....let's see. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 3.42pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Dec 17 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So when did you decide on that Jamie? Under that criteria no economy has ever 'worked' ever. Economies work within their limitations and what is possible. What a 'good' economy would work and look like could be a good topic for philosophical discussion. We are one year into Trump's affect on the economy. He's been good for confidence but until now that's what it's mainly been. But now he's passed his tax programme....with one or two changes.....this...I imagine will really come to tell the tale on whether Trump 'the business man' will be good for the economy. He has to make up for those tax cuts to business and more to justify the give away....he talks about jobs....let's see. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 3.42pm) I think there has been times where, even in disparity, the UK economy has largely worked for most of society - notably in the post war period and early 70s - Such as when having a low skilled job, could provide for a family and working was a route out of poverty. Provision of things like council housing for example, meant that whilst most people couldn't afford a house, they could afford a home. And those in a situation where they couldn't work, or were unemployed, recieved a benefit situation and housing that was above a subsistance level.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 28 Dec 17 4.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Provision of things like council housing for example, meant that whilst most people couldn't afford a house, they could afford a home. The construction of council housing stimulated the economy and their existence acted as a coolant on the overall rental market by providing an affordable alternative to private rentals for those who could not afford their own home. This is basically the opposite of the market now, where private landlords buy-up available properties - including former council housing - which makes homes scarce and unaffordable. This forces more people into renting which, without the cooling effect of available public housing, becomes more and more expensive. It's a situation devolving into Feudalism. Edited by Ray in Houston (28 Dec 2017 4.58pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Dec 17 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think there has been times where, even in disparity, the UK economy has largely worked for most of society - notably in the post war period and early 70s - Such as when having a low skilled job, could provide for a family and working was a route out of poverty. Provision of things like council housing for example, meant that whilst most people couldn't afford a house, they could afford a home. And those in a situation where they couldn't work, or were unemployed, recieved a benefit situation and housing that was above a subsistance level. The types of economies you refer to are pre globalization. Thanks to the economic right and the 'no borders' left those times aren't coming back. Like I said, economies are limited by what is realistic and possible...Also, after the war it was the American's Marshall plan that enabled that housing and not a governmental marshaling of the economy...the country was in poor fiscal shape and we weren't out of rationing until 54......as for the early seventies? The country was again in a deep financial mess. So to point to these economies is extremely subjective. As I said, we haven't ever had an economy where everyone had a reasonable standard of living......though in comparison to much of the world many of us live as princes.
Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 6.05pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 28 Dec 17 6.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You are far from the only one spinning this line but the reality is that a year in.....the, 'it would have happened anyway' line of argument is just denying reality. Business confidence is affected differently by who is sitting in the Oval office. There are plenty of areas to criticise Trump on.....hell, his approach to the economy itself being one of them.....but that fact that the American economy is doing well and that is because capitalists have faith in Trump is undeniable. What happens once his tax cuts work through.....and seeing whether they are used for reinvestment and jobs or are just pocketed to shareholders....that will be far more the test of whether his tax plans made sense. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 4.16pm) You're over-exaggerating his role too. Trump hasn't effected the jobs market positively or negatively but just happens to be in The White House as its seven year trend downwards continues; nor has he had such an effect one way or the other to blow the growth forecasts from before he was inaugurated out of the water. They are what they said they would be. If Hillary was in it'd be the same. If Ali G were in it would also be the same.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| .TUX. 28 Dec 17 6.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
More to do with the Fed releasing funds tbh, just as it was under Obama. Let's see what happens now the screw is being turned. You are far from the only one spinning this line but the reality is that a year in.....the, 'it would have happened anyway' line of argument is just denying reality. Business confidence is affected differently by who is sitting in the Oval office. Maybe initially, but once again i'll refer to The Fed. There are plenty of areas to criticise Trump on.....hell, his approach to the economy itself being one of them.....but that fact that the American economy is doing well and that is because capitalists have faith in Trump is undeniable. It isn't. Period. What happens once his tax cuts work through.....and seeing whether they are used for reinvestment and jobs or are just pocketed to shareholders....that will be far more the test of whether his tax plans made sense. Yep. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 4.16pm)
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 Dec 17 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
You're over-exaggerating his role too. Trump hasn't effected the jobs market positively or negatively but just happens to be in The White House as its seven year trend downwards continues; nor has he had such an effect one way or the other to blow the growth forecasts from before he was inaugurated out of the water. They are what they said they would be. If Hillary was in it'd be the same. If Ali G were in it would also be the same. As soon as the man won the market rose significantly...now that happens anyway....but more to the point...it kept on rising. I agree with you though that it's not via any talent of his it's just built upon believe in what he will do. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 8.44pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 29 Dec 17 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As soon as the man won the market rose significantly...now that happens anyway....but more to the point...it kept on rising. I agree with you though that it's not via any talent of his it's just built upon believe in what he will do. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Dec 2017 8.44pm) The reason for increases in share prices wasn't due to confidence in the economy but an understanding that the only policy Trump promised that he was likely to deliver on was tax cuts for companies and investors knew that the benefits would mainly flow to shareholders not employees or anyone else. Hence share prices went up as expectations of post tax returns and up without having to do anything to achieve them via investment etc. Business know he won't enact any of his protectionist, jobs or immigration policies as that would not be in their interests or his own personal interest. Republicans have publically admitted this will add at least $1tn to the deficit and it's likely to be more than that. For no gain. It's terrible economics with huge swathes of evidence to that end. Time and again tax cuts like this do not have any real trickle down and create inequality and lower productivity. Not jobs and prosperity. The deficit will then be used as an excuse to cut Medicaid and social security. More terrible policies.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Dec 17 9.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
The reason for increases in share prices wasn't due to confidence in the economy but an understanding that the only policy Trump promised that he was likely to deliver on was tax cuts for companies and investors knew that the benefits would mainly flow to shareholders not employees or anyone else. Hence share prices went up as expectations of post tax returns and up without having to do anything to achieve them via investment etc. Business know he won't enact any of his protectionist, jobs or immigration policies as that would not be in their interests or his own personal interest. Republicans have publically admitted this will add at least tn to the deficit and it's likely to be more than that. For no gain. It's terrible economics with huge swathes of evidence to that end. Time and again tax cuts like this do not have any real trickle down and create inequality and lower productivity. Not jobs and prosperity. The deficit will then be used as an excuse to cut Medicaid and social security. More terrible policies. I regard that as reasonable analysis. What I would add is that it's important that an incoming president or incoming party in parliament gets the main pieces of their campaigns through the legislative processes. That said the Trump election was doubtful on a votes perspective if not an electional college one so some battle over policy is perhaps a fairer reflection on national mandate. However, I'm glad he's got his tax stuff through because, when you ignore the twitter insults, at the end of the day that's a big piece of what he's sold himself on and what he should be judged on.....'it's the economy stupid' was perhaps the wisest thing Clinton said....the one with voter appeal. I too have doubts on his tax plans but then again, I will wait and see....because if there's one thing you can be certain about economists is that they rarely agree on economies.....every situation is unique to its context so ok Mr Trump, this is your time.....lets see what happens. Republicans always raise the deficit.....when they are in opposition they nearly always unethically vote against the democrats spending on anything but when they gain power they can mostly rely on the democrats supporting any infrastructure or services programmmes.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Dec 17 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Going by his sarcastic tweets I see the snow in the U.S has made Donald even more sure that global warming is just made up, scientific evidence and all. A White Van Man/Gobby Black Cab driver is President of the United States. And before him a 'community organizer'.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Sheks Crows Eye Virginia 29 Dec 17 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
One year in, here's what I think are good and bad things from Trump. Good: Bad: Edited by Penge Eagle (29 Dec 2017 12.56pm) I would argue that he handled it perfectly since Marxists and Neo-nazis are just different sides of the same coin.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.