The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[elliseamos]

Democrats in 2020: Refill The Swamp!

jk, it'll be something stupid embroidered on oversized blue hats.

[Electromatic]

Democrats in 2020: Refill The Swamp!

jk, it'll be something stupid embroidered on oversized blue hats.

Why not "Restore Wetlands" ?

You know, storm surge and all that jazz.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

the next stock market crash is scheduled for early next year, so his popularity will drop then probably.

Not sure why there's this lingering mythology that Trump is somehow popular. But anyway, if you trust the LIBRUL MEEDEA at NBC/WaPo this morning, there's some pretty bad news for el presidente.

[4/5]

when americans are all eating shit again because this irresponsible tax cut some democrat can come back in and clean it all up

I agree that this tax cut was irresponsible, but what evidence is there that it is harming Americans more than irresponsible Democratic budgets?

[bune]

You knew this when you signed on so pardon me if I don't have a care for you or your future prospects.

And how is my day going?

So you can afford that sweet tax break for the rich but screw the COLA increases for people who actually work. Nice.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

when americans are all eating shit again because this irresponsible tax cut some democrat can come back in and clean it all up

I agree that this tax cut was irresponsible, but what evidence is there that it is harming Americans more than irresponsible Democratic budgets?

It created a massive deficit under the guise that the economic engine would be running so strongly that it would "pay for itself." Obviously that's a big, long-term promise, but in the meantime while the masses are waiting to see if that does indeed happen in our lifetimes, corporations and the ultrawealthy get a lion's share of the short-term benefits.

I'm no economist but it seems that the real problem in this country is the lack of wage growth. That needs to start happening soon or something is going to break. We've been living off of dollar menus, dollar stores, Walmart, etc., which has in turn fueled low wages because people feel like they can have "a lot" even though it's all low-end garbage that they'll have to replace in a year or two, or food that's slowly killing them.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

And how is my day going?

So you can afford that sweet tax break for the rich but screw the COLA increases for people who actually work. Nice.

I'm shocked that he of all people would do such a thing!

When the giant, runny, bloody, pus-filled turd that is this presidency finally completes its arc across America from DC into the spinning wind turbines of the Palm Desert, splattering its disease and utter filth across the entire country, I'll at least have peace knowing I was right all along. But I won't say "I told you so," because that's not my style.

[---]

my my look at all these deficit hawks feathering their nest

[4/5]

when americans are all eating shit again because this irresponsible tax cut some democrat can come back in and clean it all up

I agree that this tax cut was irresponsible, but what evidence is there that it is harming Americans more than irresponsible Democratic budgets?

It created a massive deficit under the guise that the economic engine would be running so strongly that it would "pay for itself." Obviously that's a big, long-term promise, but in the meantime while the masses are waiting to see if that does indeed happen in our lifetimes, corporations and the ultrawealthy get a lion's share of the short-term benefits.

I'm no economist but it seems that the real problem in this country is the lack of wage growth. That needs to start happening soon or something is going to break. We've been living off of dollar menus, dollar stores, Walmart, etc., which has in turn fueled low wages because people feel like they can have "a lot" even though it's all low-end garbage that they'll have to replace in a year or two, or food that's slowly killing them.

Agreed about the massive deficit, but it's not as if we didn't have similarly massive deficits in the previous decade. And of course, the magical math they used to say the tax cut would pay for itself is pure fantasy. I don't disagree with any of that. And when taxes are cut, the wealthy get the largest share of the breaks since they pay the lion's share of the taxes.

My question is regarding the claim that these tax cuts are hurting/are going to actively harm Americans.

[Strat]

when americans are all eating shit again because this irresponsible tax cut some democrat can come back in and clean it all up

I agree that this tax cut was irresponsible, but what evidence is there that it is harming Americans more than irresponsible Democratic budgets?

It created a massive deficit under the guise that the economic engine would be running so strongly that it would "pay for itself." Obviously that's a big, long-term promise, but in the meantime while the masses are waiting to see if that does indeed happen in our lifetimes, corporations and the ultrawealthy get a lion's share of the short-term benefits.

I'm no economist but it seems that the real problem in this country is the lack of wage growth. That needs to start happening soon or something is going to break. We've been living off of dollar menus, dollar stores, Walmart, etc., which has in turn fueled low wages because people feel like they can have "a lot" even though it's all low-end garbage that they'll have to replace in a year or two, or food that's slowly killing them.

Agreed about the massive deficit, but it's not as if we didn't have similarly massive deficits in the previous decade. And of course, the magical math they used to say the tax cut would pay for itself is pure fantasy. I don't disagree with any of that. And when taxes are cut, the wealthy get the largest share of the breaks since they pay the lion's share of the taxes.

My question is regarding the claim that these tax cuts are hurting/are going to actively harm Americans.

Well, perhaps an immediate impact is the major tax cuts have now apparently left no money to increase wages for his federal workers.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

My question is regarding the claim that these tax cuts are hurting/are going to actively harm Americans.

If you don't think that growing the gap between rich and poor and squeezing out the middle class for the benefit of corporations who don't trickle some of that down to workers isn't actively harming them, I don't know what else to say.

[96583UP]

immediate term: no money for infrastructure spending or any public-benefit spending really

medium term:

federal government will be insolvent in a few years

won’t be able to raise taxes

which means will have to cut more from federal budget

average americans need federal government spending and programs more than the 1%ers

when it is belt tightening time again, ratchet will widen the rich poor gap even further

they just raided the treasury. the stimulus to the economy is mostly a one-shot.

Democrats have managed spending and earning gap more responsibly

US govt is basically following the formula that trump’s businesses followed: load ‘em up with debt, abscond with funds, leave the shell in tatters for someone else to clean up

[---]

I'm no economist but it seems that the real problem in this country is the lack of wage growth. That needs to start happening soon or something is going to break. We've been living off of dollar menus, dollar stores, Walmart, etc., which has in turn fueled low wages because people feel like they can have "a lot" even though it's all low-end garbage that they'll have to replace in a year or two, or food that's slowly killing them.

1) Lack of nominal wage growth is debatable: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/02 ... ecreasing/. How would you characterize the behavior of wages over time, particularly when you extend either (or both!) of those charts back to 1980? This obviously does not take into account performance for different parts of the overall income distribution.

2) Nominal wages are subject to the same dynamics as any other price reckoned by market processes. The considerable post-Cold War trend towards market liberalization has meant the median unskilled American worker is now competing against a global pool of similarly unskilled labor for job opportunities which, unfortunately, could not rise proportionally. Unskilled Americans have much less bargaining power than when communist and socialist regimes effectively barred their citizens from entering global labor markets. Increased supply of workers = lower ceiling on the wages each can demand.

3) Wages are not the only component of overall compensation. As health care has become more expensive, a larger proportion of an employee's overall compensation package has gone to these expenses, leaving less room for nominal wage growth.

If you don't think that growing the gap between rich and poor and squeezing out the middle class for the benefit of corporations who don't trickle some of that down to workers isn't actively harming them, I don't know what else to say.

I would argue that your scope is too narrow. To the extent the middle class has been squeezed, those benefits have largely gone to workers in third-world countries who, prior to liberalization, only had one class: the poor. Middle class America's loss has been India and China's gain; specifically, an Indian and Chinese middle class that simply did not exist 30 years ago. Corporations of course benefit, but without question the largest beneficiary has been the third-world poor.

[4/5]

Well, perhaps an immediate impact is the major tax cuts have now apparently left no money to increase wages for his federal workers.

Yeah I guess I'd say that those are two separate policies and demonstrate the administration's priorities. This pay freeze will save $25 billion in a year in which he's increased the deficit by basically 50%, in part due to tax cuts and in part due to massive spending increases in other areas. I'm not willing to take that as a causal link and a direct result of the tax cuts, but I admit that the wage freeze is a policy that harms certain ordinary Americans.

[4/5]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

[---]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

The constituency of capitalism has always been the poor. "It's a race to the bottom!" say the Bernie Sanders of the world, completely incapable of understanding that that is precisely capitalism's virtue.

[4/5]

I'm just going to reply to each within the quote box in a different color.

immediate term: no money for infrastructure spending or any public-benefit spending really This should be true, but unfortunately Congress has shown it is perfectly willing to spend a Trillion dollars more than it collects in revenue this year. So this is a matter of spending priorities, not a result of the tax cut.

medium term:

federal government will be insolvent in a few years This isn't any different than Bush and Obama era policies. It's a major problem, but it's not as if this tax cut created the problem. Just another in a long line of policies leading to the same eventual outcome. A massive infrastructure project or public benefit spending in place of the tax cuts would have done the same thing.

won’t be able to raise taxes I don't really follow this one. I might be misunderstanding what you mean, though.

which means will have to cut more from federal budget It should mean that. We'll see if it means that after all.

average americans need federal government spending and programs more than the 1%ers Federal spending has increased this year, though.

when it is belt tightening time again, ratchet will widen the rich poor gap even further This is possibly true. I have no doubt Republicans would like to start limiting TANF and SNAP and Medicaid.

they just raided the treasury. the stimulus to the economy is mostly a one-shot. I agree that there was no justification for the tax cut from a stimulus/expansionary policy standpoint.

Democrats have managed spending and earning gap more responsibly Idk. As far as spending goes, this depends on an individual's values, so I don't think this is right or wrong necessarily.

US govt is basically following the formula that trump’s businesses followed: load ‘em up with debt, abscond with funds, leave the shell in tatters for someone else to clean up Totally agree. Unfortunately, this is just another in a long line of policies that do that very same thing. Some of them are conservative policies, like ramped up military spending and war-making, others are liberal, like old-age security and income supports.

Again, I'm not defending the tax cut but I don't think it is going to have destructive effects that are any different from the destructive effects that would have resulted from an equal government spending increase.

[Stickman]

A DOJ Lawyer Was Told Russia Had Trump ‘Over a Barrel’

[bune]

I read something yesterday about how they figure he's been a Russian asset since the mid 80's even.

[Strat]

According to a Brookings Institute paper, by 2020 50% of the world's population will be middle class. It states that as of December 2016 3.2 billion people were already part of the middle class.

That is incredible.

I know it's somewhat off topic since we're talking about American middle class, but I think it's another great reminder that the biggest beneficiaries of market economies have far and away been the poor. It's much sexier to write headlines about wealth gaps and the alleged concentration of wealth, but sometimes it's good to remember that we are living in a time of unparalleled prosperity in human history.

The constituency of capitalism has always been the poor. "It's a race to the bottom!" say the Bernie Sanders of the world, completely incapable of understanding that that is precisely capitalism's virtue.

can you expand on this for me please?