Trump Attacks Iran and Inflation has a love experience!

[Luckyone]

I don't use Trump for economic insight. I have done quite well for myself by reading a variety of sources and using common sense. 12-13% annualized growth on my largest account is pretty good. Analysts are not immune to being influenced by outside sources, particularly when it comes to Trump and his policies. IMO, the markets and the economy will flourish under Trump. Deregulation across the board, more even tariffs and making the tax cuts permanent will benefit the economy greatly. Deportations will not have a significant negative effect. Now that Trump is in office, it doesn't help the "experts" cause when they cry wolf every week, about another doom and gloom event that never comes to pass. WW3 is the latest example. Inflation is yet another. Remember, the "experts" said the Biden inflation was transient. I stated many times on this board that it was not. Many experts can't see the forest for the trees.

Lets wait it out and see how it all pans out. So far so good as far as I am concerned.

Alll I can say to you is that history does not support your point of view. It has been proven in the past that tax cuts do stimulate the economy at first, but later on they cause damage of consequence that is very difficult to repair. Trump is a total idiot and the worst part is that he never listens to anyone, meaning chaos will be the end result.

Potential Negative Impacts and Concern of tax cuts:

• Impact on pre-tax wages: While the broader economy is projected to grow, pre-tax wages might not keep pace with the expansion due to limitations on itemized deductions affecting housing investment.
• Deficit and debt increase: Tax cuts, especially with potentially reduced spending cuts, can increase the budget deficit, leading to greater government borrowing. This borrowing can lead to higher interest payments on the debt, potentially reducing American incomes as measured by GNP.
• Crowding out of private investment: Increased government borrowing can "crowd out" or reduce private investment, which may contribute to higher interest rates.
• Reduced revenues: Tax provisions would likely reduce federal revenues over the next decade, with the most significant impact occurring after the scheduled expiration of the TCJA's individual provisions at the end of 2025.

 

[SweetTea]

Alll I can say to you is that history does not support your point of view. It has been proven in the past that tax cuts do stimulate the economy at first, but later on they cause damage of consequence that is very difficult to repair.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. They do need to be coupled with less spending, given our debt. Imagine for a moment that the US had no debt, but the government needed more revenue to fund some additional expenditures. Would it be more advantages to increase taxes to get extra revenue in the short term but to contract the economy or would it be more advantages to decrease taxes to stimulate the economy and increase revenue in the long term? I recognize that we are in debt, but it doesn't negate the principle. Raising taxes is only a short-term gain. Once the economy contracts, they will need to be raised again to accommodate for the shortfall. It is a never ending cycle that hurts consumers. Ultimately, spending needs to be cut.

Impact on pre-tax wages: While the broader economy is projected to grow, pre-tax wages might not keep pace with the expansion due to limitations on itemized deductions affecting housing investment.

What limitations? SALT?

Deficit and debt increase: Tax cuts, especially with potentially reduced spending cuts, can increase the budget deficit, leading to greater government borrowing. This borrowing can lead to higher interest payments on the debt, potentially reducing American incomes as measured by GNP.

What reduced spending cuts? The new bill will reduce spending. I don't trust the CBO as far as I can throw them, so spare me their analysis.

Crowding out of private investment: Increased government borrowing can "crowd out" or reduce private investment, which may contribute to higher interest rates.

Again, I don't believe we will be borrowing any more in the long term, so this point is moot.

Reduced revenues: Tax provisions would likely reduce federal revenues over the next decade, with the most significant impact occurring after the scheduled expiration of the TCJA's individual provisions at the end of 2025.

What specific provisions are expiring that would reduce federal revenues?

 

[Luckyone]

Tax cuts stimulate the economy. They do need to be coupled with less spending, given our debt. Imagine for a moment that the US had no debt, but the government needed more revenue to fund some additional expenditures. Would it be more advantages to increase taxes to get extra revenue in the short term but to contract the economy or would it be more advantages to decrease taxes to stimulate the economy and increase revenue in the long term? I recognize that we are in debt, but it doesn't negate the principle. Raising taxes is only a short-term gain. Once the economy contracts, they will need to be raised again to accommodate for the shortfall. It is a never ending cycle that hurts consumers. Ultimately, spending needs to be cut.

you mean to say medicare, medicaid, social secutriy, food stamps, welfare and other programs like those will suffer, in order to help the rich pay less taxes, right?

What limitations? SALT?



What reduced spending cuts? The new bill will reduce spending. I don't trust the CBO as far as I can throw them, so spare me their analysis.



Again, I don't believe we will be borrowing any more in the long term, so this point is moot.



What specific provisions are expiring that would reduce federal revenues?

Tax cuts help the rich at the expense of the poor. The problem with that is that the rich are not going to be spending more but the poor will be spending less, meaning the economy WILL suffer

 

[SweetTea]

you mean to say medicare, medicaid, social secutriy, food stamps, welfare and other programs like those will suffer, in order to help the rich pay less taxes, right?

Did you know that spending for food stamps increased by 40% under Biden? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe just perhaps, many government programs are bloated and can be made more efficient without losing efficacy? For some reason, that possibility never comes to mind.

Tax cuts help the rich at the expense of the poor. The problem with that is that the rich are not going to be spending more but the poor will be spending less, meaning the economy WILL suffer

The ultra-rich may not spend more when taxes are cut, but the “rich” according to Democrats most certainly do. Why would the poor be sending less when they have more money in their pockets? Lower income folks spend money when they have it. Stimulus proved that. Lowering taxes does not contract the economy. Sorry, but that is a simple fact.

 

[Luckyone]

You are truly misinformed

Did you know that spending for food stamps increased by 40% under Biden? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe just perhaps, many government programs are bloated and can be made more efficient without losing efficacy? For some reason, that possibility never comes to mind.

I wonder why? Could it possibly be that the poor needed food? You honestly believe that Biden and his administration got some personal benefit by raising food stamps for the poor. That there was fraud there>

There are two friends of ours that are on food stamps and it is still not enough for them. They had to FIGHT to get more food stamps as the requirements for getting them are very strict. They had to prove their need by supplying documents that proved their income, their expenses etc., and it was still a small amount they got.

One thing for SURE. The rich DO NOT NEED more help!!!!!!!!

The ultra-rich may not spend more when taxes are cut, but the “rich” according to Democrats most certainly do. Why would the poor be sending less when they have more money in their pockets? Lower income folks spend money when they have it. Stimulus proved that. Lowering taxes does not contract the economy. Sorry, but that is a simple fact.

Trump's Big Bill for Billionaires Steals from the Poor to Give to the Ultra-Rich​

June 12, 2025

H.R. 1, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — in fact, an ugly bill — kicks 16 million people off their health insurance, makes the largest cuts to nutrition assistance in history, and makes higher education less affordable. Why? To pay for tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the ultra-rich.

Non-partisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) shows that the bill worsens inequality, gives the ultra-rich a historic tax break, and makes working people worse off. Adding insult to injury, when including the cost of debt service, CBO finds that this bill adds $3 trillion to the national debt.

 

[SweetTea]

SweetTea

Fake news rating to facts?

You truly are licking Trump's ass

View attachment 1129561

Nope, I am just not deranged.

 

[Luckyone]

Nope, I am just not deranged.

Wow, finally a Trump supporter acknowledging their weakness. I am surprised.

Next step to recovery is to start doing research (easy using Google) and getting the facts.

When you stop listening to liars and begin finding the truth, you will recover from your derangement.

Then again, if you enjoy smelling Trump's ass, you won't recover.

 

[SweetTea]

Wow, finally a Trump supporter acknowledging their weakness. I am surprised.

Next step to recovery is to start doing research (easy using Google) and getting the facts.

When you stop listening to liars and begin finding the truth, you will recover from your derangement.

Then again, if you enjoy smelling Trump's ass, you won't recover.

The fact is that when taxes are lowered, those making less money spend the extra money in their pockets. That is the very purpose of stimulus money and exactly why us “rich” people received none back during COVID.

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You just parrot what you read without so much as an original thought of your own.

 

[imawhosure]

The fact is that when taxes are lowered, those making less money spend the extra money in their pockets. That is the very purpose of stimulus money and exactly why us “rich” people received none back during COVID.

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You just parrot what you read without so much as an original thought of your own.

Call him by his correct name---------> He is MACAFLOOZY in EL Disgiusy-) He is a phony, a propagandist, and a GASLIGHTER. If he shows up outside a big city and bends over, the residents will KICK him square in his a**!

 

[Luckyone]

The fact is that when taxes are lowered, those making less money spend the extra money in their pockets. That is the very purpose of stimulus money and exactly why us “rich” people received none back during COVID.

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You just parrot what you read without so much as an original thought of your own.

you didn't see the chart or read the article I suppled, did you?

YOU evidently enjoy being deranged!

 

[SweetTea]

you didn't see the chart or read the article I suppled, did you?

YOU evidently enjoy being deranged!

Are you talking about the article from the democrats budget office that begins with “H.R. 1, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — in fact, an ugly bill —”. Yeah, I read it. It is full of partisan bull hockey, but that is how most of you get your news. Maybe you should look at the actual bill and the cuts and note where most of the deficit the CBO claims is accounted for. Most are stimulatory. No tax on overtime. No tax on tips. Expanded 199a pass through deductions for businesses. Increased child tax credit, etc. Many of these are not for the “rich”, but will benefit the average tax payer. The CBO doesn’t seem to account for the rise in GDP that will undoubtedly occur, thus raising revenues.

Work requirements for SNAP shouldn’t be controversial. Cuts to Medicare spending include the requirement for a person to be lawfully present in the US to receive Medicare at age 65. Common sense really, particularly given the number of people that just walked across our border in the last 4 years to take advantage of benefits such as this. Also, seniors will be able to contribute to an HSA account, offsetting some taxes for medical expenses. Oh the horror.

You and many others read the dribble from these partisan hack reporters and believe it. It is sad and frankly a little scary. This is exactly how nuts like Mamdani in NYC win elections. Many people believe whatever they are told and are led around by their noses by the VERY partisan MSM.

Back to tax cuts…The ultra-rich do benefit from tax cuts. Since they are ultra-rich, they tend to invest the extra money instead of spending it and thus get richer. They poorer tend to spend it. Remember, we are talking about 97%+ of the population going on a spending spree as opposed to adding additional investments. How exactly is that a bad thing for the economy, particularly when we are only allowing them to keep more of the money they earn, not giving them anything?

Are you opposed to raising the SALT cap or removing it all together? That is a huge tax cut for many ultra-wealthy people, particularly in high tax blue states. Democrats clutch their peals and spout that the rich should pay their “fair share” all the while being all about that tax break. As it stands now, it may be raised to 40k but has income restrictions. Democrats would love nothing more than to remove it all together, like before Trump capped it during his first term. Rich Democrats talk a big game, but when the rubber meets the road, they vote to keep themselves rich.

The main driver behind non-rich Democrats opposition to tax cuts for everybody is envy. They can’t stand the fact that a “rich” person gets to keep more of their money, despite still paying a higher percentage of their income in the first place.

 

[j-mac]

Oil surged after the US struck Iran's three main nuclear sites and threatened further attacks, exacerbating a crisis in the Middle East and stoking concerns that energy supplies from the region could be disrupted. Global benchmark Brent rallied as much as 5.7% to $81.40 a barrel, extending three weeks of gains.

Oil Soars as Trump's Attack on Iran Boosts Risks to Supplies

JPMorgan analysts warned earlier this month that a full-blown military conflict and a closure of the strait could hike prices as high as $130 per barrel. That would probably push prices at the pump in the U.S. up by more than $1 from where they are now.

Every action has a reaction and the bliss that the Right is experiencing right now because Trump bombed Iran has consequences, which in this case, are likely to be felt in the pocketbook of all Americans.

Didn't Trump promise to lower inflation with "drill baby, drill"? Well, the fact is that he just drilled his own promise into the ground.

Well, this didn’t age well…Brent crude today $65.77….lol

 

[SweetTea]

Well, this didn’t age well…Brent crude today $65.77….lol

This guy doesn’t have a clue. He just regurgitates from leftists new sources. I guess he doesn’t realize he is being duped.

 

[j-mac]

This guy doesn’t have a clue. He just regurgitates from leftists new sources. I guess he doesn’t realize he is being duped.

How can they spew such steaming piles without at least checking their topic across a broad spectrum of news outlets?

Some analysts right there I tell ya! I wouldn’t let him invest my lunch money, much less serious money…

 

[ColonelAngus]

These sicko **** lefties are HOPING LIKE HELL that the Iran Israel war continues and MORE PEOPLE DIE just because they hate Trump.

TDS IS A REAL THING.

These people are mentally ill.

 

[Luckyone]

Are you talking about the article from the democrats budget office that begins with “H.R. 1, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — in fact, an ugly bill —”. Yeah, I read it. It is full of partisan bull hockey, but that is how most of you get your news. Maybe you should look at the actual bill and the cuts and note where most of the deficit the CBO claims is accounted for. Most are stimulatory. No tax on overtime. No tax on tips. Expanded 199a pass through deductions for businesses. Increased child tax credit, etc. Many of these are not for the “rich”, but will benefit the average tax payer. The CBO doesn’t seem to account for the rise in GDP that will undoubtedly occur, thus raising revenues.

Well, here from PBS reporting and using the Congressional Buget Office information (non-partisan group) is this piece of information for you:

We found some data, again, from the Congressional Budget Office that breaks down by income level whether you gain or lose. So let's take a look at that really quickly. First, on the tax cuts, you can see most Americans generally gain from these tax cuts, but the bottom 10 percent, look at this, technically lose $40 on average.

These are folks who really may not pay much in taxes, but they're losing some deductions here. Now, add in the deduct — the health care changes and the cuts, you see something dramatic. The bottom 30 percent of Americans on net lose under this bill, according to CBO, mainly because they may be losing their health insurance altogether.

They're losing benefits far more than they are gaining in taxes. Who gains? It goes up by income. And that top 10 percent gain the most. What's this mean percentage wise? Well, I have got those numbers too. This is about a 2 percent gain for the top 10 percent of Americans. It's about a minus-4 percent loss for those who are the most poor in this country.

Back to tax cuts…The ultra-rich do benefit from tax cuts. Since they are ultra-rich, they tend to invest the extra money instead of spending it and thus get richer. They poorer tend to spend it. Remember, we are talking about 97%+ of the population going on a spending spree as opposed to adding additional investments. How exactly is that a bad thing for the economy, particularly when we are only allowing them to keep more of the money they earn, not giving them anything?

AI Overview

While the argument is often made that tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to increased investment and economic growth, evidence suggests that this is not always the case. Some studies show that tax cuts for the wealthy primarily benefit the wealthy themselves, with limited impact on overall investment or economic growth.

The main driver behind non-rich Democrats opposition to tax cuts for everybody is envy. They can’t stand the fact that a “rich” person gets to keep more of their money, despite still paying a higher percentage of their income in the first place.

AI Overview

The period from the mid-1940s to the late 1960s, often referred to as the post-World War II boom, is widely considered the time when the U.S. economy was at its strongest for the largest number of Americans. This era saw significant economic growth, rising living standards, and a strong middle class.

Here's why this period stands out:

• Economic Growth:
  The U.S. experienced rapid economic expansion following World War II, fueled by pent-up consumer demand and investments in infrastructure and industry.
  
  
• Rising Living Standards:
  Average incomes increased, and the benefits of economic growth were widely distributed, leading to a larger middle class and a higher overall standard of living.
  
  Here is the chart that supports this evaluation:
  
  
  
• 
  
• Debunking trickle down economics - Failures Of Trickle-Down

 

[SweetTea]

Well, here from PBS reporting and using the Congressional Buget Office information (non-partisan group) is this piece of information for you:

We found some data, again, from the Congressional Budget Office that breaks down by income level whether you gain or lose. So let's take a look at that really quickly. First, on the tax cuts, you can see most Americans generally gain from these tax cuts, but the bottom 10 percent, look at this, technically lose $40 on average.

These are folks who really may not pay much in taxes, but they're losing some deductions here. Now, add in the deduct — the health care changes and the cuts, you see something dramatic. The bottom 30 percent of Americans on net lose under this bill, according to CBO, mainly because they may be losing their health insurance altogether.

They're losing benefits far more than they are gaining in taxes. Who gains? It goes up by income. And that top 10 percent gain the most. What's this mean percentage wise? Well, I have got those numbers too. This is about a 2 percent gain for the top 10 percent of Americans. It's about a minus-4 percent loss for those who are the most poor in this country.


AI Overview

While the argument is often made that tax cuts for the wealthy will lead to increased investment and economic growth, evidence suggests that this is not always the case. Some studies show that tax cuts for the wealthy primarily benefit the wealthy themselves, with limited impact on overall investment or economic growth.


AI Overview

The period from the mid-1940s to the late 1960s, often referred to as the post-World War II boom, is widely considered the time when the U.S. economy was at its strongest for the largest number of Americans. This era saw significant economic growth, rising living standards, and a strong middle class.

Here's why this period stands out:

• Economic Growth:
  The U.S. experienced rapid economic expansion following World War II, fueled by pent-up consumer demand and investments in infrastructure and industry.
  
  
• Rising Living Standards:
  Average incomes increased, and the benefits of economic growth were widely distributed, leading to a larger middle class and a higher overall standard of living.
  
  Here is the chart that supports this evaluation:
  
  View attachment 1129914
• 
  
• Debunking trickle down economics - Failures Of Trickle-Down

You continue to fall for the spin. It stands to reason that any cuts or changes to Medicaid will affect the lower 10 percent the most since they are the ones getting the benefit in the first place. The changes and cuts are mainly around work requirements and being in the country lawfully.

The top 10% is about 200k/yr. Is that now the definition of rich?

 

[OODA_Loop]

You are truly misinformed




You honestly believe that Biden and his administration got some personal benefit by raising food stamps for the poor.

Political benefit not altruistic motivation.

 

[westwall]

Israel bombed Iran on Thursday and Trump bombed them on Saturday, meaning Iran had only 36 hours to think about it. 36 hours to evaluate and consider all potential option is ridiculous.

They had more than enough time. They chose to **** around.

So they found out.

 

[westwall]

You don't seem to understand that I am a stock market analyst and have been one for 48 years, I don't listen to others, they listen to me! I have shown publicly and officially success every year for the past 18 years that I have had my subscription service. I charge $30 per month and 5 of the original subscribers to my service are still with me for all 18 years. I must be doing something right, no?

I am the one that reads and interprets the economic info, not the other way around, like you do by listening to Trump and repeating his lies.

And based on your posting history you must be a really shitty one.