Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

[depotoo]

You do realize as a company regains more control of their companies, they have more leverage with their Boards, right? What are Boards all about? ‘Bring us more profit off the backs of everyone!’

Some time research and see who sits on these Boards. You might be shocked.

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Oh no, this bill will be very good for stocks.

U.S. investors target 'buyback stocks' in bet on Trump tax plan

But as you say, not so good for the economy

 

[The Derp]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Oh no, this bill will be very good for stocks.

U.S. investors target 'buyback stocks' in bet on Trump tax plan

But as you say, not so good for the economy

When someone sells stock at a higher price, why isn't that good for the seller, his family and the economy?

2008 is calling. They have some AIG stock they would like to sell you.

I remember back in 2005 when people like Toddster and Larry Kudlow were calling those warning of an impending bubble and collapse "bubbleheads". They were all wrong then, so why the fuck would they be right today?

 

[The Derp]

You do realize as a company regains more control of their companies, they have more leverage with their Boards, right? What are Boards all about? ‘Bring us more profit off the backs of everyone!’

Correct. This tax plan is a windfall for those who sit on the Boards.

 

[depotoo]

Seriously?? And Bush started warning in 2001 and didn’t let up.
Much more at link-
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
  

Democrats claimed that the Republican tax bill would only benefit Wall Street and now they claim that it won't benefit Wall Street. Which is it? The problem with the left is that they thrive on bad times and stagnant economy and food stamps and illegal immigration and they see anything that might benefit the Country as a threat.

It benefits the people who work on Wall Street, but this tax bill will assuredly cause a housing crisis which will result in a repeat of what happened to the market in 2008.

In 2008 the market collapsed because home prices dropped thanks to foreclosures from Bush's subprime lending push from 2004-7.

In 2019/20 the market will collapse because home prices dropped thanks to the elimination of the deductions that are built into home prices.

That's why GS says no growth -and likely negative growth- beginning in 2020.

BTW - not one single Conservative has produced an analysis showing this thing will increase growth and pay for itself. Mnuchin promised that analysis, then failed to deliver.

So your contention, that this tax bill will somehow create growth, has no support.

 

[depotoo]

Wrong, it gives more control back to the companies.

You do realize as a company regains more control of their companies, they have more leverage with their Boards, right? What are Boards all about? ‘Bring us more profit off the backs of everyone!’

Correct. This tax plan is a windfall for those who sit on the Boards.

 

[The Derp]

Seriously?? And Bush started warning in 2001 and didn’t let up.
Much more at link-
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

Democrats claimed that the Republican tax bill would only benefit Wall Street and now they claim that it won't benefit Wall Street. Which is it? The problem with the left is that they thrive on bad times and stagnant economy and food stamps and illegal immigration and they see anything that might benefit the Country as a threat.

It benefits the people who work on Wall Street, but this tax bill will assuredly cause a housing crisis which will result in a repeat of what happened to the market in 2008.

In 2008 the market collapsed because home prices dropped thanks to foreclosures from Bush's subprime lending push from 2004-7.

In 2019/20 the market will collapse because home prices dropped thanks to the elimination of the deductions that are built into home prices.

That's why GS says no growth -and likely negative growth- beginning in 2020.

BTW - not one single Conservative has produced an analysis showing this thing will increase growth and pay for itself. Mnuchin promised that analysis, then failed to deliver.

So your contention, that this tax bill will somehow create growth, has no support.

Loans from GSE's performed better than all other types of loans, and were among the last to enter foreclosure, proving GSE-backed loans defaulting were a consequence of the drop in the housing market that was the result of garbage, privately-backed subprime loans that entered delinquency at rates 5-7 times the average prior to 2004:

So everything you're saying is bullshit.

Also, here's testimony from Bush the Dumber's Treasury Secretary John Snow saying, in October 2003 to the House Committee, the GSE's were not under any threat:

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.​

So how are Democrats to blame when Bush's Treasury Secretary said there was no threat to GSE's in October 2003, and Democrats controlled no branches of government at that time, either? Conservatives controlled the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS fully beginning in January 2003.

 

[The Derp]

Wrong, it gives more control back to the companies.

Control of what?

 

[g5000]

Seriously?? And Bush started warning in 2001 and didn’t let up.
Much more at link-
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

Now that's some funny shit right there.

The reason Bush was trying to limit the size of the GSE portfolios was so Wall Street could increase their market share. Bush was not trying to reform the GSEs. He was trying to tie their hands so Wall Street could run amok.

Bush was a HUGE booster of the housing bubble. He encouraged increased lending by the banks and the relaxation of regulations. He provided government financial incentives, too.

President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high down payment.

And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund.

This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.

Secondly, there is a lack of affordable housing in certain neighborhoods. Too many neighborhoods, especially in inner city America, lack affordable housing units. How can you promote homeownership if people can't afford a home?
And so what I've done is propose what we call a Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, to encourage the development of affordable housing in neighborhoods where housing is scarce. (Applause.)

A third major barrier is the complexity and difficulty of the home buying process. There's a lot of fine print on these forms. And it bothers people, it makes them nervous. And so therefore, what Mel has agreed to do, and Alphonso Jackson has agreed to do is to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are -- makes the closing much less complicated.

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to.

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.

 

[hadit]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Wait. I thought we were supposed to support things that Wall Street far cats don't like. Get with the program.

 

[g5000]

"We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to."

Boom.

Centuries of hard learned lessons chucked right out the window with the underwriting laws of the Universe.

The idea that Bush tried to stop the subprime bubble is a fucking hoax. He STOKED it.

 

[g5000]

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

"First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.)"
- George Bush, June 17, 2002

 

[g5000]

Seriously?? And Bush started warning in 2001 and didn’t let up.
Much more at link-
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

Democrats claimed that the Republican tax bill would only benefit Wall Street and now they claim that it won't benefit Wall Street. Which is it? The problem with the left is that they thrive on bad times and stagnant economy and food stamps and illegal immigration and they see anything that might benefit the Country as a threat.

It benefits the people who work on Wall Street, but this tax bill will assuredly cause a housing crisis which will result in a repeat of what happened to the market in 2008.

In 2008 the market collapsed because home prices dropped thanks to foreclosures from Bush's subprime lending push from 2004-7.

In 2019/20 the market will collapse because home prices dropped thanks to the elimination of the deductions that are built into home prices.

That's why GS says no growth -and likely negative growth- beginning in 2020.

BTW - not one single Conservative has produced an analysis showing this thing will increase growth and pay for itself. Mnuchin promised that analysis, then failed to deliver.

So your contention, that this tax bill will somehow create growth, has no support.

Final Rule Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities Rel. No. 34-49830 June 8 2004

The Commission is amending Rule 15c3-12 (the “net capital rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) to establish a voluntary, alternative method of computing net capital for certain broker-dealers.

Boom.

Guess what happened to those "certain broker-dealers".

 

[Winston]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Oh no, this bill will be very good for stocks.

U.S. investors target 'buyback stocks' in bet on Trump tax plan

But as you say, not so good for the economy

When someone sells stock at a higher price, why isn't that good for the seller, his family and the economy?

A Rising Stock Market Does Not Signal Economic Health | Steven Horwitz

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

View attachment 164291

DURR!

According to Goldman Sachs, this tax bill will only increase growth by 0.3% for 2018-19 and then either flat-line, or contract the economy beginning in 2020.

That's a loser.

According to Goldman Sachs, this tax bill will only increase growth by 0.3% for 2018-19

Oh no! Increased growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When someone sells stock at a higher price, why isn't that good for the seller, his family and the economy?

Because they're not trickling down that income like you promised they would if their taxes were lowered. So you've already broken one promise, care to break some more?

Because they're not trickling down that income like you promised they would if their taxes were lowered.

Giving money to their shareholders doesn't increase net worth, spending, income?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Oh no, this bill will be very good for stocks.

U.S. investors target 'buyback stocks' in bet on Trump tax plan

But as you say, not so good for the economy

When someone sells stock at a higher price, why isn't that good for the seller, his family and the economy?

2008 is calling. They have some AIG stock they would like to sell you.

What does rising stock prices have to do with AIG's idiocy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

Oh no, this bill will be very good for stocks.

U.S. investors target 'buyback stocks' in bet on Trump tax plan

But as you say, not so good for the economy

When someone sells stock at a higher price, why isn't that good for the seller, his family and the economy?

A Rising Stock Market Does Not Signal Economic Health | Steven Horwitz

No kidding, just look at the weak Obama economic recovery.

 

[Meathead]

According to Goldman Sachs, the former employer of Trump's chief economic adviser, this tax bill will only increase growth 0.3% for 2018 and 2019 before either flat-lining, or producing negative growth beginning in 2020.

Goldman Sees U.S. Tax Cut Boosting Growth 0.3% Point in 2018-19
The U.S. Congress will probably pass tax-cut legislation within the next two weeks, ushering in reductions that will boost economic growth by around 0.3 percentage point for next year and 2019, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Goldman Sachs doesn't think the Republican tax bill would be a big boost to the US economy
We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could actually be slightly negative," the Goldman economists wrote.​

Even Wall Street thinks this bill sucks.

"...boosting growth 0.3%".

You can't fix stupid.

 

[depotoo]

To even equate the 2, is silly. He said there were barriers in place for legitimate buyers with legitimate loans. Many people were paying more in rent for years than if they had enough for a down payment to buy, given the option.

He never stated for banks to extend past what people could afford, or Fannie or Freddie to buy up and guarantee unqualified, subprime loans, etc , which is exactly what was going on. That was not the purpose of a Fannie or Freddie. They were to guarantee qualified loans. They then used derivatives to hedge their interest rate risks, and screwed the pooch.

Seriously?? And Bush started warning in 2001 and didn’t let up.
Much more at link-
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

Now that's some funny shit right there.

The reason Bush was trying to limit the size of the GSE portfolios was so Wall Street could increase their market share. Bush was not trying to reform the GSEs. He was trying to tie their hands so Wall Street could run amok.

Bush was a HUGE booster of the housing bubble. He encouraged increased lending by the banks and the relaxation of regulations. He provided government financial incentives, too.

President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high down payment.

And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund.

This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.

Secondly, there is a lack of affordable housing in certain neighborhoods. Too many neighborhoods, especially in inner city America, lack affordable housing units. How can you promote homeownership if people can't afford a home?
And so what I've done is propose what we call a Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, to encourage the development of affordable housing in neighborhoods where housing is scarce. (Applause.)

A third major barrier is the complexity and difficulty of the home buying process. There's a lot of fine print on these forms. And it bothers people, it makes them nervous. And so therefore, what Mel has agreed to do, and Alphonso Jackson has agreed to do is to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are -- makes the closing much less complicated.

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to.

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.

 

[AntonToo]

Even Wall Street thinks this tax bill is a loser

View attachment 164291

DURR!

According to Goldman Sachs, this tax bill will only increase growth by 0.3% for 2018-19 and then either flat-line, or contract the economy beginning in 2020.

That's a loser.

According to Goldman Sachs, this tax bill will only increase growth by 0.3% for 2018-19

Oh no! Increased growth.

Oh no! Increased growth at time of growth. paid for with DEFICITS that ALREADY look disastrous.

Can ANYONE supporting these tax cuts explain to me why this is a good idea?