Trump's 4% GDP growth promise update

[RealDave]

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

 

[MAGAman]

And Trump the vile moron with his bankrupting 6 times isn't all of the above?? The moron born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple How much more does he need to add to our debt before repub idiots get a clue AND BTW how are those tax cuts paying for themselves??

If you could hate less and think more you would notice that revenues the government are an all time high. That's 1 way tax cuts pay for themselves.

If you opened your eyes you would notice that food stamps and unemployment are way down because tax cuts. 2 more ways they pay for themselves.

An honest news program would tell you revenues are raising better than any time since the last Republican was POTUS. That means people are spending more in communities across America. There's the 4th way.

Hatred is an emotion. Replace that with logic and reason, and you'll buy a MAGA hat.

 

[imawhosure]

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

MAGA, how dumb are these people? I know, I know, a rhetorical question, lol.

The government is NOT the economy, the private sector is Leftists! All the government can do is---------->create conditions for the private sector to grow, or create conditions for the private sector to contract. The only other thing the government can do is MANIPULATE THE MONEY SUPPLY through interest rates or availability.

Now then Lefties, what do YOU think would cause the economy or GDP to grow more--------------->you being able to spend 100 dollars a week, or you being able to spend 110 dollars a week?

Your retort of course is--------------> just spend the 100, and leave the extra 10 with the government to spend. Have I got that correct!

So then, just by using your Socialistic logic, how then does the economy grow more? Does the government with that 10 bucks open new plants? Do they create new goods? New and exciting products that our trading partners want to buy from us? New technologies that LOWER the cost of goods at the final price point?

Noooooooooooo, you know what they do with it? If they don't buy votes with redistribution, they invest in things like a high speed rail line in California, then ABANDON the damn thing! Or, they invest in places like Solyndra that lose money, then fold up like a cheap suitcase.

Now then, if a private company had done these boondoggles, they would have gone out of business, and only the shareholders, CEOs, and operating officers would have taken a financial bath; you know, those evil rich, and rightfully so. But not your way, oh no, no, no. Taxpayers took a bath, the dummies who did it...………..some of them are still in Washington, and you financial GENIUSES want them to do something else because there last endeavors were sooooooo, damn, successful.

Again, while it is a rhetorical question, exactly HOW, DUMB, ARE YOU!

People Like Bernie who has never been in the private sector, or AOC, a bartender extraordinaire, knows how to create wealth better than corporations to make the economy grow?

You are ALL incompetent, irrelevant, and hopefully, immaterial!

And Trump the vile moron with his bankrupting 6 times isn't all of the above?? The moron born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple How much more does he need to add to our debt before repub idiots get a clue AND BTW how are those tax cuts paying for themselves??

Ed, you have a better alternative from your peeps that have announced they were running? Show me their economic plan for expansion.

Also, being that we are BOTH taxpayers----------------> if the government is going to spend us into oblivion no matter what we do, would we rather continue on with 10 dollars in our personal pocket, or 5?

If you notice, NOBODY from either side is addressing the national debt. In fact, most of them are talking about MORE spending. Well hey, wouldn't you rather spend your own money on the way down, or let the government spend it for ya as we sink!

 

[edward37]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

 

[MAGAman]

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

It is always fun to play misguided partisan politics. Part of the reason for the recession was Democrat policies. Part of the reason climbing out of the recession took so long was because of bad policies of the administration.

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

 

[imawhosure]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Well, there are many studies on what you posted, but I have a question------------->

If individual income tax revenue has RISEN by 7.9%, would you take that to mean--------->more or LESS people are working and paying taxes?

By your own theory---------------->if MORE people are now working, then their personal economic circumstance is better.

The only point I was trying to make is------------> the private sector is what fuels our economy. Were it not true, the government would just hire all Americans and we would live utopia.

Our jobs were LEAVING thanks to politicians from BOTH entities. From our side, the two Bushies in particular.

Without the private sector creating wealth, there is nothing to tax! That is an accurate statement for sure! The private sector was put behind the 8 ball for the last 30 years. If we are to get out of this financial mess, we need the private sector to create massive amounts of wealth and jobs, and do it much sooner than later!

 

[imawhosure]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

 

[depotoo]

3.2% would be good. I've yet to see Q4's number. All I ever want is for economic growth while the budget and inflation to be in check. If growth is coming at expense of increasing the debt or due to inflation then it seems to me it is sadly a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The shutdown will probably shave around .5% from what it could have been, from what I’ve heard.

 

[imawhosure]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Ed, this is for you----------->

Trump is NOT my kinda guy. Does that surprise you?

I like beer, he doesn't like any alcohol, he is filthy rich and I am not, he has Trump Force 1 to fly around in after he is out of office, I will be driving my Powerstroke Diesel pulling my 5th wheel to enjoy Florida while he is at Mira-Lago.

That all being said----------> he sounds like Ross Perot to me, and I wasn't a fan of his lifestyle either, but he told me the truth!

Trump and foreign policy? Not a big fan, it is ok, but wonder if he is in over his head a little.

Trump and his arrogance? Who can be a fan of that!

But, I believe that Trump is trying to do the best he can for the common working person. The common working person needs a advocate, especially Black folk. Common people have been getting screwed for decades from BOTH sides, because our politicians all believe they know what is best for all of us, and they are going to make us follow their blueprint, even if we think it sucks.

And I urge you to look at statistics! How many people go to college? What about the people who do not, where are they going to work? If Trump does NOT succeed in bringing jobs back, we will have a permanent under class. Is that what we want?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And Trump the vile moron with his bankrupting 6 times isn't all of the above?? The moron born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple How much more does he need to add to our debt before repub idiots get a clue AND BTW how are those tax cuts paying for themselves??

If you could hate less and think more you would notice that revenues the government are an all time high. That's 1 way tax cuts pay for themselves.

If you opened your eyes you would notice that food stamps and unemployment are way down because tax cuts. 2 more ways they pay for themselves.

An honest news program would tell you revenues are raising better than any time since the last Republican was POTUS. That means people are spending more in communities across America. There's the 4th way.

Hatred is an emotion. Replace that with logic and reason, and you'll buy a MAGA hat.

Someone who does nothing but parrot partisan talking points should never speak of logic and reason.

Let's look at tax revenue...taken from the Monthly Treasury Statement. Monthly Treasury Statement - Previous Issues

The tax cuts took effect on 1 Jan 2018.

From Jan to Dec 2018 total tax revenue was: $3,330,470,000,000
From Jan to Dec 2017 total tax revenue was: $3,343,634,000,000

I have a feeling that math is not your thing, so let me help. That is a decrease of $13,164,000,000 in tax revenue since the tax cuts kicked in as compared to the previous 12 months.

Can you explain how a decrease in tax revenue is the same as "revenues are raising better than any time since the last Republican was POTUS.". Or did the last Repub that was POTUS also decrease tax revenue, just he decrease it more?

Can you explain your comments please?

Thanks, I will be waiting...

 

[danielpalos]

The recession was officially declared ended not long after he took office. The recession was partly due to democratic policies.

Yeah it ended but you really believe there was no recovery from the republican recession ? That everything went back to as it was before the worst recession of our time?

It is always fun to play misguided partisan politics. Part of the reason for the recession was Democrat policies. Part of the reason climbing out of the recession took so long was because of bad policies of the administration.

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

The right wing does't realize the only reason we had it as easy as we did, is because of FDR's social programs.

 

[danielpalos]

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

It was all politics. The right wing refused to give the black guy the win; and had nothing but repeal regarding all the shovel ready jobs bills. Growth would have been much less anemic with more people working.

 

[danielpalos]

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

MAGA, how dumb are these people? I know, I know, a rhetorical question, lol.

The government is NOT the economy, the private sector is Leftists! All the government can do is---------->create conditions for the private sector to grow, or create conditions for the private sector to contract. The only other thing the government can do is MANIPULATE THE MONEY SUPPLY through interest rates or availability.

Now then Lefties, what do YOU think would cause the economy or GDP to grow more--------------->you being able to spend 100 dollars a week, or you being able to spend 110 dollars a week?

Your retort of course is--------------> just spend the 100, and leave the extra 10 with the government to spend. Have I got that correct!

So then, just by using your Socialistic logic, how then does the economy grow more? Does the government with that 10 bucks open new plants? Do they create new goods? New and exciting products that our trading partners want to buy from us? New technologies that LOWER the cost of goods at the final price point?

Noooooooooooo, you know what they do with it? If they don't buy votes with redistribution, they invest in things like a high speed rail line in California, then ABANDON the damn thing! Or, they invest in places like Solyndra that lose money, then fold up like a cheap suitcase.

Now then, if a private company had done these boondoggles, they would have gone out of business, and only the shareholders, CEOs, and operating officers would have taken a financial bath; you know, those evil rich, and rightfully so. But not your way, oh no, no, no. Taxpayers took a bath, the dummies who did it...………..some of them are still in Washington, and you financial GENIUSES want them to do something else because there last endeavors were sooooooo, damn, successful.

Again, while it is a rhetorical question, exactly HOW, DUMB, ARE YOU!

People Like Bernie who has never been in the private sector, or AOC, a bartender extraordinaire, knows how to create wealth better than corporations to make the economy grow?

You are ALL incompetent, irrelevant, and hopefully, immaterial!

Labor needs a cost of living adjustment; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage does that.

 

[danielpalos]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Yeah it ended but you really believe there was no recovery from the republican recession ? That everything went back to as it was before the worst recession of our time?

It is always fun to play misguided partisan politics. Part of the reason for the recession was Democrat policies. Part of the reason climbing out of the recession took so long was because of bad policies of the administration.

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

 

[danielpalos]

And Trump the vile moron with his bankrupting 6 times isn't all of the above?? The moron born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a triple How much more does he need to add to our debt before repub idiots get a clue AND BTW how are those tax cuts paying for themselves??

If you could hate less and think more you would notice that revenues the government are an all time high. That's 1 way tax cuts pay for themselves.

in right wing fantasy, your view always works.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[caddo kid]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

The goal of NAFTA was to reduce barriers to investments & to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

 

[imawhosure]

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Donald Trump promised 4.0% GDP growth a year.

Updated - Trump-O-Meter: Grow the economy by 4 percent a year

In 2018, he fell short with 3.2% growth.

It's still early in 2019, so all we have is estimates of first quarter growth. In order for the economy to stay on track to 4% growth, Q1 must be at least /approximately 4%.


So far things don't look good at all. Economist Diane Swonk said yesterday that Q1 growth could be 1.5%:

GDP growth for the first quarter could slip below 1-1/2% if shutdown endures through the end of the week.

Diane Swonk on Twitter

It looks like Trump wildly exaggerated the results he could achieve.

Have the 2018 numbers been released?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

It is always fun to play misguided partisan politics. Part of the reason for the recession was Democrat policies. Part of the reason climbing out of the recession took so long was because of bad policies of the administration.

Most was because it was trhe worst recession in 80- years.

Any idiot would surmise that a recovery would match the severity of any recession.

Unless you are a stupid ******* Trumpette

So your answer to everything is double down on partisan politics while showing utter stupidity in being unable to spell even with spell check as a usual addition to most typing programs. Yeah for you.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

The right wing is worse that AOC. Tax Cut Economics are Worthless if they don't balance the budget.

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So then, which party wants to add 30 trillion to the debt with new programs, when they haven’t even explained how to pay for their past programs?

Just asking!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Which party added 1.48 trillion to the debt in a single CY during a booming economy, not talked about it but added it when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[imawhosure]

and then there's this
Has Revenue Risen in 2018?
AUG 16, 2018 | TAXES


Update: After the end of the fiscal year, we published an updated version of this piece with final numbers from the Treasury Department.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

Oh, so the worse the recession, the easier the recovery? You're an ass.

We gained manufacturing jobs under Obama. We lost 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs under Bush.

After Bush & the Democrats bailed out the banks (You Republicans had a ******* fit). The recession started 4th quarter of 2007. The near meltdown did not come to light until the summer of 2008. Job lasses did not strt to decrease until March of 2009, after the passage of a ARRA.

Insuring more people, wow how ugly is that.

You absolutely don't know shit.

The most insured people was welfare-healthcare, not Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to fail. Obama holding the economy down guaranteed more citizens depending on government and fewer citizens depending on themselves and holding onto their dignity.

The .8$Trillion Porkulus bill was the biggest water of money in history, with much of it being funneled into the DNC and other Democrat coffers.

According to the fed, CNBC, Kiplinger, the revised numbers were 2.9%. According to the federal open market committee, the forecast is 2.3% in 2019, 2% in 2020, 1.8% in 2021 based upon current economic growth. This discounts the effects of future trade war tariffs or a recession, given the slowing of the world economy. It doesn’t look like Trump will see any numbers close to a 4% growth rate except the one quarter in 2018 that was artificially created by a rush of purchases before the current tariffs took place.

GDP in 1997 = 4.4%
GDP in 1998 = 4.5%
GDP in 1999 = 4.8%
GDP in 2000 = 4.1%

It would seem that some posters here must have not been born yet based on some of the 'comical' posts

Not partisan anything. It s called common sense.

The worse the recession, the more difficult the recovery

Why can't you get that??? Was it way over your head?

I am responding on a message board, not writing a thesis. **** you If you do't like my typos.

Actually the opposite. Reagan's historic recovery wasn't because he was brilliant, it was because he wasn't stupid, and he wanted a robust recovery.

After Bush bailed out the banks, the blood stopped flowing.

All Obama had to do for a robust recovery was to stay out of the way. Instead he regulated manufacturing jobs until they left and enriched his donors by attacking the energy sector.

Obama enriched big-insurance and big-pharm with Obamacare at the expense of the public, again downsizing the recovery.

You know what fellas, lets see if the Leftists can follow the bouncing ball, lol------------>

QUESTION FOR LEFTISTS----------------> IF 10% MORE of world production of EVERYTHING was switched back in to United States, would the US economy grow larger, or shrink? I know, a very hard question, but I have even Leftists can come up with the correct answer!

Soooooooooooo, what would cause this; or any percentage of this to happen? Would it be-------->

A. cheaper price

B. better product

C. Both!

Now then, if all the inputs into the product cost basically the same price to virtually every country, and the labor costs are higher here, how can we compete?

ANSWER---------->PRODUCTIVITY! Our labor can be HIGHER, IF we produce more with the same amount of labor!

QUESTION TO LEFTIES---------------> If that is TRUE, then why did we lose much of our manufacturing base?

ANSWER---------------> Because LABOR is NOT the only external factor in final cost, there are many. Two of which are----------->the cost of REGULATION to produce the product, and the AMOUNT of TAX paid on the profit from that product! The LESS PROFIT you have coming into your corporation because you are attempting to compete with someone who does NOT have massive regulation or high taxes, the LESS you can reinvest in new technologies to INCREASE productivity! Add to that, some of your competitors are STEALING your technology from you and getting it for free, does not bode well for your long term survivability as a viable business.

SOLUTION---------->

1. Increase the amount of goods you produce for world consumption by increasing productivity.

2. But won't that cost jobs? Not like you think, because while it takes LESS people to produce the same amount of goods, because of your productivity, your price point is DOWN, which means you have INCREASED the amount of goods you are producing for world consumption, doing to other countries what they have done to you.

3. Lower costly, cumbersome, regulation to DECREASE what it costs to produce the goods to make you far more competitive in the world market.

4. Lower taxes so as they compete, corporations have MORE money to invest in new technologies to make them more productive so as you can corner MORE of the market for your goods, thus INCREASING GDP and jobs, albeit different kinds of jobs.

Who is trying to do that? Does that sound like AOC to you? In fact, does that sound like ANYTHING the Left is proposing?

AOC is an ass ,,We all have our crosses to bear

I love that women, not because of her political views but because in less than 2 months in Congress she has taken up space rent free in all RWNJ's heads. It is fun to watch.

I really wonder how many of the people on this board realize that the original intent of NAFTA, was to actually OUTSOURCE a lot of jobs across the border, to raise their standard of living so as we could export more goods to them!

LOOK IT UP, what the original intent was!

And you know what? CORPORATIONS took advantage of these rules, and now here we are, fighting to get production back!

ALL of the politicians involved in this, thought it was a great idea. Prices would drop for us, standard of living would rise for them, and walla, we sell more goods, and aren't we geniuses!

This is EXACTLY what happens when OUR leaders come up with great ideas, or so they tell us. All this REALLY was could be called MASSIVE FOREIGN AID, and many, many people, paid for these decisions with jobs some of them would otherwise not have lost.

Think I am wrong?

Then you explain why the last 3 Presidents all insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA. Unions and blue collar workers knew EXACTLY what happened, and yet, after promising, only Trump delivered, and if the deal is good has yet to be decided.

The LAST outsider who ran for President; Ross Perot, told America EXACTLY what would happen. BOTH sides of the aisle ridiculed him, and if you want to be educated, look up what he said, and the retort from BOTH political entities.

This reason alone gave me reason to vote for Trump. I was just wondering if again, it was all rhetoric from someone running for President. It wasn't!

Free trade is a wonderful thing, with that I agree. But, nobody in their right mind creates policies that will help EXPORT jobs. If another country wants them, then let them WIN them, not have our politicians hand them over on a silver platter, then have their own misguided policies, prevent them from stopping it!

The goal of NAFTA was to reduce barriers to investments & to trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico.

What a genius you are! And how was the Mexican consumer going to buy our goods?

Because we GAVE them jobs, wake up, or are you being a Pravda Propagandist?

QUESTION——> you are acting smart, so tell us Karnak........ what good is opening up a market area, when the people can’t afford your goods? Please, explain it in economic terms to this board!

And, how well did government interference work trying to accomplish this with their genius?

Are you invading Mexico yet for a job illegally, and sending your cash back here to your family? If not, why not?

You are the quintessential phony-e-baloney of BOTH party’s, pick either one.

You have absolutely NOTHING to show for your stance, but lost American jobs, and a failed policy that you question blue collar people with while attacking them!

Congrats, you have managed to cross the political aisle between HW, GW, and BHO. Aren’t you proud of yourself-)


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com