Roberts and Schiff panned Trump's tax cut; Ron Paul: '[It] won't work without spending cuts'

a reply to: MOMof3

That is true I think tefra was the big one. Followed by the ssi tax.

Still didn't cover the 1.7 trillion in lost revenue from the cuts.

a reply to: xuenchen

He increase spending from carter and ford.

So...

a reply to: lordcomac

Dunno man...while I loathe the CIA, I suspect they equate to a financial net win for the US.

Biggest dope dealers on Earth.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: antiantonym

Of course there will be spending cuts.

One step at a time. Besides, those cuts will be somewhat in relation to revenues. They will come.

First step would be to freeze spending. But they have been fighting that for decades.

It's basically drinking wine in the desert.

A thought hit while reading your post, the thing that changes this old spending cut-tax cut debate, and may well relegate it to ancient history, is this one time tax cut in returning funds to the U.S.. Trump is quoted at 4 trillion dollars returning to the U.S. coffers.

Even if close in the numbers, that is a game changer in and of itself. We have zero precedent for both a tax cut and that massive influx of money into the economy.

Maybe those spending cuts won't have to be as deep as one would think....

I agree. Time to cut ALL military spending which did absolutely NOTHING to protect us on 9/11.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: lordcomac

Dunno man...while I loathe the CIA, I suspect they equate to a financial net win for the US.

Biggest dope dealers on Earth.

While I agree the CIA makes plenty of money selling drugs, they're not handing that profit over to the rest of the government, or paying taxes on it... so that's not really a net win. They're just using that money to run their own nefarious programs that they can't risk being uncovered by a financial audit.

You know- the ones that even the black budget people don't authorize.

Dismantle them. Cut their funding, seize their equipment, and start investigating their crimes.
50+ billion dollars a year.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It's possible but independent analysis shows nothing of the sort. You would be hard pressed to find anyone besides the sales person quoting those numbers.

I get a cut personally but I have lived through several of these schemes. They all require a perfect scenario, and any hick up from wars to housing bubbles destroy the surpluses.

a reply to: luthier

What independent analysis do you refer to? I don't know any that are 'independent', for that matter.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You don't know of any third party tax foundations or research groups?


For instance the tax foundation shows 1 trillion not 4 and they are pro this cut.

However, what do you think happens with a housing collapse, interest rate hike, or even small regional wars like iraqi freedom? Or heaven forbid north Korea. No tax cut is the end all be all of growth. Human behavior isn't always easy to predict. Having a rainy day fund like Norway would be nice.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nwtrucker

You don't know of any third party tax foundations or research groups?


For instance the tax foundation shows 1 trillion not 4 and they are pro this cut.

However, what do you think happens with a housing collapse, interest rate hike, or even small regional wars like iraqi freedom? Or heaven forbid north Korea. No tax cut is the end all be all of growth. Human behavior isn't always easy to predict. Having a rainy day fund like Norway would be nice.

Frankly, I don't know any, nor would i follow any. My cynicism has grown too much regarding third party/independent groups. How would these groups know who has promised what to the President? My answer is they wouldn't. I will take his numbers over anyone else's until proven otherwise. That's just me, though. Too many TPPers out there.....

The other subjects you raise isn't my point in responding to the thread. The cuts are. The returning cash is. The bonuses and raises by three corporations even before the bill is signed into law is.

We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Exactly. Wait and see.

But it hasn't worked since jfk. That is my cynicism. That and the same idiots in Congress have been fighting spending freezes for decades.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The only benefit the tax cuts are going to really have, if you can call it that, is increasing wages.

I do keep hearing them talk about increasing wages. If the Republicans are so concerned about raising wages of the American people, why are they so dead fast totally anti-union?

You could probably admit that most union jobs pay more for the same type of work done by a non union worker in the same trade.

Why are they anti union if they are concerned about wages?

I actually agree with Paul, Schiff and Roberts, however only from a purest perspective. The world simply does not operate in an all or nothing way. There is ZERO chance that a bill would have been passed that people like Ron Paul would have been happy with - even though he's right in my view. It's probably correct that the 'tails' of the political distribution of ideas do not get to implement their ideas. They are never likely to be happy.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I agree. Time to cut ALL military spending which did absolutely NOTHING to protect us on 9/11.

First we have to murder war....

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: antiantonym

Everyone hated Reagan's tax cut too....until it worked. Give it a chance.

Come back and talk to us in February.

Reagan's tax cuts didn't work, hes raised taxes 11 times after the cuts

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: antiantonym

Everyone hated Reagan's tax cut too....until it worked. Give it a chance.

Come back and talk to us in February.

Reagan's tax cuts didn't work, hes raised taxes 11 times after the cuts

He did ?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: nwtrucker

Exactly. Wait and see.

But it hasn't worked since jfk. That is my cynicism. That and the same idiots in Congress have been fighting spending freezes for decades.

It worked every time since JFK. Congress raised spending every time the revenues increased from the tax cuts. Every time.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I agree. Time to cut ALL military spending which did absolutely NOTHING to protect us on 9/11.

OMG are you kidding? /sarcasm.....

Listening to NPR yesterday, they had a guy on that found from 1998 to present 21 trillion dollars of, I cant think of the exact words it was labeled as, but budget adjustments in DoD and I think he said HUD also.

He named a website where he has posted all the pertaining gov't documents, I was driving so I can't recall it.

21 trillion above and beyond their budget and no explanation as to why.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: antiantonym

Everyone hated Reagan's tax cut too....until it worked. Give it a chance.

Come back and talk to us in February.

Reagan's tax cuts didn't work, hes raised taxes 11 times after the cuts

He did ?

The success in America under Reagan had nothing to do with what he did. It was Obama that set the table - all the credit should go to him.

The tax cuts for the MC and LC really amount to the same thing as a small stimulus


However, because of the large debt most people are under its doubtful these 300 and 400 dollars will add much to macro demand in light of stagnant wages


Demand and confidence is the key to a vibrant economy.


And the demand isn’t high because people have too much debt and little confidence in the economy, generally speaking therefore they don’t spend because wages have been stagnant.

Lots of promises to help shareholders. Two promises to hire more workers. No promises to raise wages. By Heather Long Updated Dec. 21, 2017

Most commentators say corporations will use the tax cuts to go to paying dividends and paying debt.


What people do not realize is that a vibrant economy does not depend of rich people but the macro demand of the MC—and that depends on wages which have been stagnant .

The problem with this tax cut is that it adds little to demand since it’s a small shot of money most people will use to pay down debt.