If the tax cuts will pay for themselves, why stop at $1.5 trillion? Why not add $5 trillion to the national debt in order to give an even bigger tax cut? Our economy would take off like a rocket!

 

They're not going to pay for themselves... Congress will get entitlement reform done by March, and that will be where the cost is picked up.

 

Personally, I think any tax cut that isn't budget neutral at least is wrong. Especially from deficit hawks. But entitlement reform is going to be next.... followed by an infrastructure bill that will spend trillions so it won't matter.

 

It's setting the stage for Democrats to post huge wins over a couple election cycles. The safety-net cuts will be undone, but Democrats will be cornered into paying for these programs by Republicans who suddenly remember they care about the deficit. And since people like programs but don't like paying for them, Republicans will be swept into office again to repeat the back-and-forth cycle.

While the new tax bill is a thinly disguised sop to the wealthy I think the Repubs played this smart. By giving the ever shrinking middle class a small boost in their paychecks they may avoid serious blow-back in the 2018 election. Don't underestimate the cluelessness of the American voter. So while they are happy enough with their slightly larger payroll check they are blithely unaware that those on the top end are pocketing hundreds of thousands if not millions with this tax plan. Slick.

We were promised that the market would would increase bigly with the tax cuts.  Now that the Cut Cut Cut Act is all but law, the market has remained flat both yesterday and today.  Methinks, Trump may regret tying his success to the Dow.  The Dow can be a fickle mistress.

 

 

^you can't design the economy to take care of these people - they will always find a way to be poor.  Bad decisions, poor work ethic, self inflicted health issues from smoking/drinking/bad diet, etc

 

This struck a chord with me.  I would never deny there are people who simply make poor financial decisions and suffer for it.  However, there are systemic issues within our country that exacerbate the effects of these poor decisions, particularly for already poor Americans.

 

1) We're the only developed country in the world where you can go bankrupt due to a medical emergency.  That is embarrassing. 

 

2) Plenty of Americans at every income level make terrible financial decisions, but the most important factor that determines whether it will cripple you for your entire life is nearly always the genetic lottery.  Jared Kushner, for example, might be the worst real estate investor in the entire World and will lose truckloads of money on 666 5th Avenue.  But he'll be just fine won't he?  This has nothing to do with his work ethic, intelligence, diet, or anything else other than the family that he was born into and the one that he married into.

 

3) The fact that many people make poor financial decisions is all the more reason to make sure social security is solvent for the long term.  SS is the sole source of retirement income for about 20% of people 65 and older and we think it's a good idea to let them gamble with that money instead of providing them with a guaranteed income source in retirement?  I'll never understand that argument.  I make plenty of money, fully fund my Roth IRA and very nearly fully fund my 401k annually and I still love having SS and my company pension because they diversify my retirement portfolio.  They provide peace of mind because I know there's a backstop, or safety net... if you will.  We should be expanding the safety net, not removing it.  This aint Cirque Du Soleil!

 

that's so great that you appear to be so highly blessed financially! I'm sure then, that as person who cares about the fate of the poor and those less fortunate to have had the opportunities you've had in life, you'll kick up your charitable contributions a notch or two to those in need, like Americans have done for generations, at least until Democrats are in charge again and the "safety net" can be re-established. Thank you in advance for your generosity!

that's so great that you appear to be so highly blessed financially! I'm sure then, that as person who cares about the fate of the poor and those less fortunate to have had the opportunities you've had in life, you'll kick up your charitable contributions a notch or two to those in need, like Americans have done for generations, at least until Democrats are in charge again and the "safety net" can be re-established. Thank you in advance for your generosity!

 

Oh look, a "conservative" wants to spend someone else's money for him.  The irony.

^well, I'm not the government so I can't actually spend someone else's money, just making a suggestion, operating under the assumption that because liberals are more "compassionate" that they would naturally be more "giving." oops! wait a minute, I was wrong. Go figure :o

 

http://trib.com/opinion/columns/purcell-charitable-giving---it-s-an-american-tradition/article_2786db0a-084e-50f7-aee4-06fb9791efe2.html

"Though not all Americans are as generous as they could be.

 

One might assume that the more liberal folks in America—folks who voice their concerns about the poor—would be more likely to donate to charitable causes. But that turns out to be a myth.

 

Stossel set up a Salvation Army bucket in two places: Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco, California. San Francisco has a lot more dough and a lot of people who classify themselves as politically liberal; only 14 percent of the people who live there attend church. Sioux Falls is a rural, middle-class community in which half the folks are churchgoers.

 

So which city gave more? The Sioux Falls folks won hands down. Stossel pointed out that the simple reason why is that liberal folks tend to believe the government should take care of the poor, whereas more religious folks tend to be big believers in giving their own time and money to help a variety of charitable causes.

 

Stossel found, in fact, that almost all the people who donated to the Salvation Army in Sioux Falls were churchgoers. And that churchgoers are four times more likely to give to charity than those who are not."

 

The government does not spend other people's money.  Unless you think that you shouldn't have to pay for services that you receive.

 

That Stossel experiment is laughable too. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone why it is flawed.  But I will if you don;t get it.

^well, I'm not the government so I can't actually spend someone else's money, just making a suggestion, operating under the assumption that because liberals are more "compassionate" that they would naturally be more "giving." oops! wait a minute, I was wrong. Go figure :o

 

http://trib.com/opinion/columns/purcell-charitable-giving---it-s-an-american-tradition/article_2786db0a-084e-50f7-aee4-06fb9791efe2.html

"Though not all Americans are as generous as they could be.

 

One might assume that the more liberal folks in America—folks who voice their concerns about the poor—would be more likely to donate to charitable causes. But that turns out to be a myth.

 

Stossel set up a Salvation Army bucket in two places: Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco, California. San Francisco has a lot more dough and a lot of people who classify themselves as politically liberal; only 14 percent of the people who live there attend church. Sioux Falls is a rural, middle-class community in which half the folks are churchgoers.

 

So which city gave more? The Sioux Falls folks won hands down. Stossel pointed out that the simple reason why is that liberal folks tend to believe the government should take care of the poor, whereas more religious folks tend to be big believers in giving their own time and money to help a variety of charitable causes.

 

Stossel found, in fact, that almost all the people who donated to the Salvation Army in Sioux Falls were churchgoers. And that churchgoers are four times more likely to give to charity than those who are not."

 

 

Or, maybe the people of San Francisco are aware of the fact that the Salvation Army is a discriminatory organization that opposes LGBTQ rights and has scaled down their programs in San Francisco because they didn't want to provide services for same-sex couples.

 

I never would have imagined that John Stossel would run such an un-scientific experiment!

It's pretty well documented that political conservatives are much more charitable than left wingers.

 

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/

 

 

Even the HuffPo blog has documented this:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

 

Much of this is due to the fact that a large percentage of charity work is undertaken by churches.

 

^^t's not just the John Stossel story. Studies have shown time and time again that conservatives are more generous (Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times is hardly a conservative)--

 

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

Nicholas Kristof

DEC. 20, 2008

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

"This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

 

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

 

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals."

 

 

Much of this is due to the fact that a large percentage of charity work is undertaken by churches.

 

What happens when you take out this kind of charity from the conservative donations?

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/?utm_term=.c65b90717586

 

 

 

Before you go all WaPo is fake news a link to the peer reviewed study is in the article.

Considering that red states receive more than their fair share of federal aid, it would make sense that conservative households in those states have more to spend on "charitable" contributions. Consider the federal income tax paid by residents of blue states a "charitable contribution" towards the entitlements received by residents of red states.

Also, conservative households likely give more money because they have higher incomes.  Conservatives try to do their best to paint themselves are morally superior but they fail to do so.

It's pretty well documented that political conservatives are much more charitable than left wingers.

 

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/

 

 

Even the HuffPo blog has documented this:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

 

Much of this is due to the fact that a large percentage of charity work is undertaken by churches.

 

How could it be pretty well documented if it is untrue?

 

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=674066092020081064125011007085022101038046007020059034127066093110126111099074018028056033058006042055014025030105120116084098053082054001060121116077012098097073006061053066087028067080075030126008071027065024123092029017091097086071015101097072024104&EXT=pdf

 

 

Also, conservative households likely give more money because they have higher incomes.  Conservatives try to do their best to paint themselves are morally superior but they fail to do so.

 

conservative households have higher incomes?? since when? Tell that to the Wall St & Hollywood crowd! The greater, and arguably more important point is that conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity. This reflects a greater degree of sacrifice, and therefore selflessness.

^ OK.  Look at my peer-reviewed link above. 

 

There is no difference in charitable giving between liberals and conservatives.  Just like there is no more propensity to be moral or fiscally responsible. 

 

Unless you have an actual study I politely ask that you stop spreading fake news on this forum.

^I'm only going by what I read in the New York Times. Who knew they were fake news? (I guess Trump was right :() I learn something new everyday here.

^ You are going by what you read in a NYTs op-ed and believing it as fact.  You do know that an op-ed is different than news reporting.

Also, conservative households likely give more money because they have higher incomes.  Conservatives try to do their best to paint themselves are morally superior but they fail to do so.

 

conservative households have higher incomes?? since when? Tell that to the Wall St & Hollywood crowd! The greater, and arguably more important point is that conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity. This reflects a greater degree of sacrifice, and therefore selflessness.

 

 

You think that enough people work in Hollywood and on Wall Street to make them statistically significant when compared to the population of the entire country?

^ Not too mention all of the Wall Street people working in the Trump Administration.  Some like Bannon try to trick rubes into thinking he isn't a Wall Street fat cat just because he spouts nationalistic racist rhetoric.

^ You are going by what you read in a NYTs op-ed and believing it as fact.  You do know that an op-ed is different than news reporting, don't you?

 

 

Obviously you didn't read the column thoroughly. It was based on the findings of a book and at least one study of charitable giving, not just an opinion formulated from whole cloth. You do understand that, don't you?

^ You are going by what you read in a NYTs op-ed and believing it as fact.  You do know that an op-ed is different than news reporting, don't you?

 

Obviously you didn't read the column thoroughly. It was based on the findings of a book and at least one study of charitable giving, not just an opinion formulated from whole cloth. You do understand that, don't you?

 

Now now, Don. No patronizing language.

An oped piece describing the findings of a book written by a conservative author.  Thanks for the correction

It's pretty well documented that political conservatives are much more charitable than left wingers.

 

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/

 

 

Even the HuffPo blog has documented this:

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html

 

Much of this is due to the fact that a large percentage of charity work is undertaken by churches.

 

How could it be pretty well documented if it is untrue?

 

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=674066092020081064125011007085022101038046007020059034127066093110126111099074018028056033058006042055014025030105120116084098053082054001060121116077012098097073006061053066087028067080075030126008071027065024123092029017091097086071015101097072024104&EXT=pdf

 

 

"At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity."

 

What a nonsensical premise. The authors clearly had a conclusion they wanted to make, and then formulated the question to ask to achieve their predetermined results. I trust the unaltered, bulk data presented in the polls I linked above much more than the data these authors attempted to adjust to post-rationalize their worldviews. Their attempt to eliminate differences along religious lines is a pretty blatant attempt to downplay conservative generosity.

^ it sounds like you made quite an analysis of the full study by glancing at the abstract.  Congrats.

Joel Osteen is worth $40 million by selling the hope of redemption to people. I, on the whole, do believe Conservatives donate more - in part because many Conservatives (pre-populism) are of higher social standing. However, televangelists fall under our umbrella so we're not in a position to lecture anyone.

Joel Osteen is worth $40 million by selling the hope of redemption to people. I, on the whole, do believe Conservatives donate more - in part because many Conservatives (pre-populism) are of higher social standing. However, televangelists fall under our umbrella so we're not in a position to lecture anyone.

I don't think anyone is "lecturing" anyone. There are bad apples and charlatans in every group who seek to exploit others. I don't know what you mean by "higher social standing," but the people who give most to charity as a percentage of their income and assets are conservatives who are in lower socioeconomic classes.

^ There is no difference in charity between liberal and conservatives.  Just like there is no difference in "moral" behavior.  One side likes to pretend they are better but they are not.  Humans being human and all.

Is there some data on the generosity of lower socioeconomic classes of liberals vs conservatives? While I doubt my family sets the liberal standard (which is to say I don't what the standard is), I donated more than $25,000 in the past year and I wasn't even the most generous in my liberal family.

Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!

Trickle down! GE is laying off 12,000 workers in 2018. AT&T announce they are laying off 1,400. 555 layoffs at Carrier. More layoffs in steel and mining. Merry Christmas from Trumpland!

 

GE, AT&T and Carrier all announced that in 2017.  GE did it because they are pulling back from that part of their business and a lot of the jobs are overseas.  I would like to see your proof on steel and mining because Murray has opened or reopened 3-5 new/old portals.  All of that is fact.

Major layoffs announced in western Kentucky coal mines

http://m.wave3.com/wave/db_336805/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=AvKE4Ubu

 

Trump Promised to Protect Steel. Layoffs Are Coming Instead. (Pennsylvania)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/business/economy/trump-steel-industry-layoffs.html

 

ArcelorMittal Harbor layoffs continue (Indiana)

Company blames downward economy for indefinite layoffs of about 700

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/arcelormittal-harbor-layoffs-continue/article_04c84c38-5896-5443-85d7-d169fde031ed.html

Where's your proof KJP...oh, here, here and here! Good for you and keep it up. In this warped time FACTS still matter to some of us.

cherry picking some stats of corporate layoffs is irrelevant.  The unemployment rate is lowest it's been since about 2008 or 2009.  And I think it will keep going lower as wages rise, it will draw more folks into the workforce

 

It's funny that KJP ends his post with "Merry Christmas from Trumpland!"    Like Trump is to blame for the layoffs?  But Obama gets the credit for the growing economy?  Which is it?  Neither!  Economic trends span multiple presidencies and many policies enacted by prior administrations take time to show up in real world measured figures.  And most importantly, national economies are very complex animals - comprised of a multitude of factors, much more so than who sits in the oval office.

 

If this thread is going to have political spin, then data should be directly attributable to policies enacted by the party/president.  If not, just admit you are guessing with a strong liberal bias

Gottaplan, haven't you learned yet that the opposition is always wrong?

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

cherry picking some stats of corporate layoffs is irrelevant.  The unemployment rate is lowest it's been since about 2008 or 2009.  And I think it will keep going lower as wages rise, it will draw more folks into the workforce

 

It's funny that KJP ends his post with "Merry Christmas from Trumpland!"    Like Trump is to blame for the layoffs?  But Obama gets the credit for the growing economy?  Which is it?  Neither!  Economic trends span multiple presidencies and many policies enacted by prior administrations take time to show up in real world measured figures.  And most importantly, national economies are very complex animals - comprised of a multitude of factors, much more so than who sits in the oval office.

 

If this thread is going to have political spin, then data should be directly attributable to policies enacted by the party/president.  If not, just admit you are guessing with a strong liberal bias

 

I'd go along with you, if our dear leader Donald Trump would stop taking full credit for anything good with the economy, while ignoring the layoffs.  Who do you think he's going to blame if a huge market crash ala 2008 happens again? 

^it doesn't matter to me who gets blame or credit.  My point above is that economic trends sometimes take years to manifest, many times a result of unintended consequences, regardless or in spite of policy.

 

Having said that, I do think the reduced regulations that Trump has ushered in is boosting certain sectors of the economy and the tax reform won't hurt either.  But again, these are long term trends.  A quick jump in the stock market is not something I'd point to as a clear answer.  As has been pointed out by many on this forum, majority of Americans do not participate in stock market or long term investments

Average Monthly Job Gains

-January through November

2017: +174,000

2016: +190,000

2015: +225,000

2014: +249,000

2013: +205,000

2012: +173,000

2011: +171,000

2010:  +89,000

 

^Courtesy of Fox News Research.  Looks like the "Trump economy" (or whatever the hell they're calling it) is slowing down in terms of jobs growth.

^so you are going with the notion that whatever happens under a president, good or bad, is directly attributable to that President?

It would be hard to get higher job quantity growth, though, given that unemployment was already quite low at the start of 2017 and our population is not rapidly increasing.  However, the real metric one should be looking at once one gets below 5% unemployment or so is real wage growth, since at least theoretically, based on economics, once employers have absorbed the available workforce (at least down to the level that just represents basically churn or almost intractable structural unemployment levels), they should feel pressure to pay more for quality workers.  And even looking at that metric, we still have a lot of underemployment, gig employment, etc. that seems to be exerting gravity on real wages.  Fortunately, inflation has been relatively tame, so real wage growth has at least not had to contend against that, but even with that, it hasn't been as robust as one would hope for an economy that has gotten back to basically full employment.

 

That said, in terms of sheer quantity of jobs, it wouldn't surprise me if 2018 was even "worse" than 2017, and it wouldn't give me much pause, simply because we've already gotten the unemployment rate down a lot.

Unemployment often times ticks UP at the start of a real growth cycle as more people are actively seeking work than might've been during lesser times

^so you are going with the notion that whatever happens under a president, good or bad, is directly attributable to that President?

 

No, of course not.

 

But many, including POTUS himself, want to play that game.

^so you are going with the notion that whatever happens under a president, good or bad, is directly attributable to that President?

Yes. His tweet alone caused Boeing to lose billions in stock value.

Unemployment often times ticks UP at the start of a real growth cycle as more people are actively seeking work than might've been during lesser times

 

Yes, the vast majority of people don't understand how unemployment really works. People here do, but we like to read or else we wouldn't be here.

^so you are going with the notion that whatever happens under a president, good or bad, is directly attributable to that President?

Yes. His tweet alone caused Boeing to lose billions in stock value.

 

 

He enjoys toying with other people's net worth the same way construction delays and building materials prices toy with his.

Dow Jones: 25,574.73 (+3.46% YTD)

NASDAQ: 7,211.78 (+4.47% YTD)

S&P 500: 2,767.56 (+3.51% YTD)

NYSE: 13,210.76 (+3.14% YTD)

Trickle down...

 

Walmart to lay off thousands of employees

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/368533-walmart-to-lay-off-thousands-of-employees

Trickle down...

 

Walmart to lay off thousands of employees

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/368533-walmart-to-lay-off-thousands-of-employees

 

But...but...bonuses!! Look, bonuses!  (Note - bonuses only given to employees who have worked at Walmart for TWENTY YEARS.)